Leaderboard

My answer was based upon my personal knowledge of the person. I would not generalize to everyone. After reading my response, a woman recognized the person and commented to me that I had done exactly what was needed at this point in time. My personal position is: Know your people and individualize according the person. No, my response will probably not convince and it is not intended to convince that there is a God. What it is intended to do is: 1) Demonstrate that I can dialogue seriously with the person involved. It should be noted that I attempted to address specific questions that the person had who contacted me. I did not push my agenda. 2) Give that person a slightly different perspective than he had expected from me. 3) Stimulate further thought in that person and potentially other questions based upon # 1 above. Will this happen? Well, sometimes this person will wait several months before another reaching out to me with a question. When that happens, I dialogue with that person until there is a stopping pint. at that time I stop and wait. The Holy Spirit is in charge.

This is a good study on this very topic: http://lawincolossians.com/

I'm not an Obama fan, but I don't hate him. I remember when he came out to Oso, Washington, when that horrific mudslide happened that wiped out so many homes and lives. He didn't bring any "help" with him, but just the fact that he showed up was very heartening to the people of the Pacific Northwest. I don't think his purpose for doing that was a photo op, but maybe it was. Maybe Trump's motive was a photo op, but, again, I don't know....I can't read his mind. How about giving people credit for doing something good for others, no matter what one's opinion is of the politics of the person? The Democratic response of condemning Trump for bringing PlayDoh to children along with his thousands of other items smacks of desperation to find something "bad" to pin on Trump. The Dem PR team shot themselves in the foot with this one, imho. (And, of course, Trump's PR team makes plenty of stupid, desparate claims on Hillary, as well.)

Read a Book The number one question people throw at God is, "But what about suffering!?" The usual answer starts with "God is all powerful" and leads to God cannot do the illogical and thus will not control people because He values their freedom of choice. This is the "God didn't create robots" line of thinking... There is another answer Christians can use. A better one for this question, I think. (a better one, all round!) It starts from a different foundation. God is Love. Starting from "God is Power" implies God's power is His primary attribute and thus where He operates from - a position of power. Starting with Love - which is more Biblical: "God is Love" (1 John 4:8) - leads to a similar conclusion but from a very different foundation. Rather than saying God cannot do the illogical we say God cannot do the unloving. Because all of Creation is a created in and sustained in His love, the uncontrolling nature of our all-loving God is universal, not just personal... I could go on, but I'll leave you to think on these things! View the full article

Hi Rachel, Your description of the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and Mary being crowned as Queen of Heaven are accurate as far as I know, being a former Catholic. Mary is also promoted as the "co-Redemptrix" or "co-Redeemer" with Jesus. She has indeed been reported to have appeared to many people over the centuries. You seem to already have a pretty firm grip on many of the important aspects of RCC doctrine. Like Adventists, the level of belief in various doctrines differs among the Catholic laity. Some SDA's put the writings of EGW on the same authoritative level as the Bible (making her infallible in matters of doctrine?); others question much of what she says. Does that make members of either group infidels? Many Catholics dismiss the doctrine of Papal infallibility (which, by the way only pertains to doctrine). Does that make them worthy of excommunication? Catholic doctrine forbids all forms of contraception except the rhythm method - whose followers are known as "parents". Most western Catholics dismiss this. Should they be kicked out of the church? SDA doctrine forbids the drinking of alcohol and eating pork. Many SDA's dismiss this. Should they be kicked out of the church? What I'm getting at is that a person's denominational identity doesn't necessarily tie them to every tenet of that denomination's culture and doctrine. There will be many Catholics in heaven - not because of their denomination; but because of their personal relationship with Jesus. There will be many SDA's who suffer the 2nd death. Not because of their denomination; but because of their LACK of a relationship with Jesus. One day, those who have never known the unsullied truth about Jesus and satan - whether by ignorance or by being twisted and deceived by a false religion - will get a chance to make an informed and intelligent choice between the two - whether in this age or the next (8th day).

That is because the governmental response to Katrina, which was on Bush's watch and his responsibility, was a sustsained and truly unquestionable disaster in itself. Remember FEMA and Bush's props to the incompetent guy he put in charge of it? It was,but that wasn't the point. Many things that happened in Katrina rests with local and state government. The lack of ordering evacuation for so long and not providing transportation to help with evacuation. A lot full of school buses and the big worry was liability. I think it was a teenager that finally took a bus to remove those stranded Obama should not have gone initially but I wonder if he remembers how he ripped Bush for not going immediately. Thus far the Federal governmental response to this natural disaster, on Obama's watch, is going as it is supposed to. Obama showing up to hand out FEMA assistance would do nothing but create a photo op. And you know very well that no matter what he does publicly about it will be criticized and condemed far more than what you are on a rant in defense of Trump about. Just as Bush was by Obama and the media. Maybe I just haven't seen it but don't see FEMA trucks lined up handing out immediate supplies. And that kind of meaninless and stupid distraction to getting the necessary job done is precisely what Obama is seeking to avoid by staying out of the lime light at this point. His experience and learning from the mistakes of Katrina, and not repeating them is kudos to his leadership. Trump is just demonstrating that he does not get that. He only knows self promotion. That is his business model. That is his campaign strategy. And that will be his presidency if he wins. It is all about Donald. Always has been. Always will be. Then Obama should have cut Bush the same slack for not going right away because he was on vacation. I would bet the farm those receiving Trumps self promotion do not share you view. Do you really think Trump is a kind and generous person? Remember his generosity to Vets? How he had to be embarrassed into doing what he had bragged he would do in his attention grabbing fund raiser during the primaries? I have to rely on you and others that preach "Do Not Assume and Do not judge, to tell me what is in Trump's heart. Has he been generous with others in the past? Yes. Was he generous because he knew someday it would look good when he ran for the presidency? Don't know Frankly I don't care. My point was making a news story about the thoughtlessness of giving children toys at this time. That simply shows ignorance and worse Following the night of the massive tornado outbreak in MN,it was exactly that type of help that was most needed and appreciated. The Red Cross responded the next day, unfortunately it was in such a way it was several days before it could be utilized.We all received vouchers to go to Target and get two changes of clothes per family member,toiletries and yes those silly toys,one per child. Problem was we couldn't get there. Roads were blocked,our car had a tree thru the windshield. We needed help right then,not wait for FEMA to sort it all out. Without any preparation the state and communities overnight did a far superior job compared to FEMA. Those that had the common sense to understand IMMEDIATE needs were a god send. With all the criticism that can be leveled at Trump this is petty.

I don't think that's true at all. That is purely an excuse. It doesn't matter what the political pundits think of Obama in the face of a tragedy. If Obama would go down there it would show his compassion as a representation of leadership for the American people. If we compare the possible responses of Obama on if he goes to the south and shows his face down there but risks being accused of setting of a photo op. Or if he just doesn't go down at all. Me personally; I'd rather be accused of doing the photo op even though the true mission is compassion. Tom, what you are saying is Obama cares more for the politics of this situation than the reality of doing the right thing. I'd say you would be correct. I personally can't stand Trump but you know what? I don't care what his motivation was, he did a good thing even through the hypocritical criticism of the liberals.

There are ways to fix the budget that *don't* place the burden primarily on those least able to bear it... Apparently unthinkable. A little look at what Jesus said about rich and poor is informative. Apparently that can all be explained away, though.

Oh please. Obama didn't have any problem condemning Bush for waiting two days to go for Katrina victims. Now all of a sudden it is the right thing to do? Whatever Trumps intention he did provide tangible help. You would be surprised how grateful you are to receive what is being scoffed at .When you don't have a diaper or a pair of shoes for your baby that semi full of what you scoff at is mighty welcome. A comb and brush are a godsend. Getting. a toy to occupy your little ones is like christmas. You can't even think of sustained help when you are just trying to get thru the next few hours. You might not have an appreciation for situations like that but our community was actually stunned at those that showed up with pickups and trailers loaded with what you are scoffing at

What the people need is help in real and tangible and sustained ways. Not photo ops for politicians. It was not that he gave anything, it was that he just went there for his own campaign benefit more than any real intent to help where it counts. The president intentionally did not go to make an appearance at this point, since it would of necessity divert/delay substantial resources while he was there.

This definitely sounds like the faith testing of the children of Israel in the desert wilderness. That is what God's people are walking through today till we get to the Jordan and the Promise land. Blessings

We disagree on this point Robert. That's OK. We are each free to study and to form our personal opinions and views. Let's go back to our discussion of Roman Catholic doctrine and how it differs from the Bible. The RC veneration of Mary is ONE OF TWO main doctrinal differences between Catholic DOCTRINE, and protestant DOCTRINE. The SECOND is Papal infallibility (when speaking as the "Vicar of Christ"), and the DOCTRINE of succession from Peter, upon whom Christ supposedly built His Church. ANSWER: It is fairly easy to show that "the rock" upon which Christ would built His church, is what Peter said (Matthew 16:16), not Peter himself. Peter said, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." THIS is "the rock" upon which the Church is built - the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. "The rock" or "cornerstone" IS Jesus Himself. To build God's Church upon any other foundation, seems ludicrous. 1 Corinthians 3:11 "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (NKJ) According to RC DOCTRINE: Mary was/is rendered "immaculate holy and without sin" immediately following her conception. (Officially defined by Pope Pius IX, in the "Ineffabilis Deus, 1854) Mary remained "without sin". Catholic DOCTRINE teaches that the "merits of Christ" were applied to Mary, preemptively - prior to her birth. She therefore did "need a savior". God "saved" her before she was born. He saves everyone else after. Mary remained a "perpetual virgin". When Jesus was born, Mary suffered no pain, and her hymen remained intact. She never engaged in sexual relations. Mary was taken up body and soul, immediately up to Heaven (following her physical death). Because she was kept free from sin, her body was kept free from corruption. (Pope Pius XII, 1950) Mary now sits as "Queen of Heaven and Earth". Mary now acts as mediator between Christ and mankind. She is the one through whom Christ bestows all graces to those on earth. "Since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard." (Pope Pius IX, in the "Ineffabilis Deus, 1854) Mary is seen as merciful, whereas Jesus is portrayed as the stern judge - meting out justice. ANSWER: "For there is one mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ" (I Timothy 2:5). Catholics tell us that she has appeared to people throughout history (since her assumption to Heaven)

Sometimes I think it would help, and then when I look back on my life, no I wouldn't want to know what was to come. I guess that is where that elusive faith comes into play. Faith that it will all work out eventually. It's just that sometimes, at least for me, faith is like the tide, sometimes it is right there and I'm ankle deep in it, and other times it is miles away and I have miles of hot dry sand in-between.

KJV says: In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away. I think that's a bit different. It should be noted, however, that when people come to God, they often make promises which they cannot keep. This is represented as the "first covenant." But the "first" covenant for us is the "second" one with God, whose first covenant with us is the eternal covenant of grace. God calls it the "new" covenant. The word "new" is not "neos" in the Greek, but rather "Kainos." It can mean "anew" or "renewed" and should not be looked upon as strictly a non-pre-existent covenant. It has always existed, but is made afresh as we renew the covenant with God. For an example of how "kainos" is used that demonstrates its "renewed" meaning, consider the "new" commandment Jesus gave to His disciples. "A new (kainos) commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." (John 13:34) But where did Jesus get the "new" commandment? According to Matthew 22:36-40 the commandment was not "new" at all, but rather the core principle of the law of God which had already been given. In Leviticus 19:18 we read "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD." Was this a "new" commandment when Jesus gave it to His disciples? Hardly. Neither is the "new covenant" new at all, but rather new to us. It must be renewed with us, for we have broken the covenant, trying to keep it in our own strength.

I have to respectfully disagree. There is WAY too much unconditional eschatological prophecy to say it won't happen. In my opinion, it is inevitable. Maybe not in the way that we think, but an extinction level apocalypse will inevitably occur; and if God doesn't intervene, it will be the end of all life on earth. The good news is that He promises to intervene.

I've read a LOT of your posts Robert. So I would say you believe that EGW was an inspired prophet of God. You believe she really did have visions from God. You quoted this: "As the little infants come forth immortal from their dusty beds, they immediately wing their way to their mothers’ arms. They meet again nevermore to part. But many of the little ones have no mother there. We listen in vain for the rapturous song of triumph from the mother. The angels receive the motherless infants and conduct them to the tree of life." 2SM 260.1 Your belief/acceptance of EGW as a prophet of God, leads you to believe that infants and young children can receive the gift of eternal life, WITHOUT ever responding to the spirit of God with BELIEF in Christ - without ever CHOOSING to serve Christ, without even believing in God. They are saved without CHOICE. This belief in the salvation of infants and young children, (and mental defectives, and ignorant pagans) because of what Christ did, apart from any CHOICE on their part, leads you to your belief that Christ did it all. But giving eternal life to infants, who will grow up to make choices, who still have FREE WILL - that will require manipulation on God's part. God will need to insure that young child does not rebel, as he grows to the age of responsibility. The LORD will need to manipulate the mind to that child - WITHOUT the child's CONSENT. I do not believe that God can LEGALLY do that. If God can just manipulate the mind of a created being - then He should have done it back in the garden. The MESS we have endured is proof the LORD will never manipulate human minds without their consent. So - we differ. I believe one must CHOOSE to believe, and CHOOSE to serve Christ as Savior and King. To do that one must reach the age of understanding, AND must hear of God, His Law, and His Son. For many that will require a physical resurrection. Which is why I believe "the rest of the dead" will be those who died in ignorance. Some of them will choose Christ. Some will rebel as the army of Gog/Magog.

I don't disagree Robert, but I would add that Jesus "emptied Himself" of divine POWER in order to incarnate into human flesh. Therefore the only divine POWER He used while on this earth, was that poured into Him by His Father. That same divine POWER is available to us. Jesus did not take advantage of any POWER that is not available to us. It's just that Jesus was filled with the Spirit of His Father from birth (maybe from conception), but we must "open the door" to that POWER - that Spirit. Yes - every man is give a small "measure" - enough to hear the knocking and feel the drawing, but to enjoy greater fullness, one must "open the door" by believing with surrender. Jesus could CHOOSE the connection before He incarnated. We cannot CHOOSE until we come to understanding. Like Adam, Jesus was filled with the Spirit. He is called "the last Adam". Unlike Adam - Jesus never rebelled.

I AGREE with this Robert. They die the first (type of) death - physical death, NOT the second (type of) death - spirit death. But - those covered because they sinned in ignorance CANNOT receive eternal life - not UNTIL they come to awareness, believe in Christ and CHOOSE to serve God. In order to be given this (first) opportunity to choose, they must be resurrected!

So you're using "sin" to mean "unconscious sin", and "transgression" to mean "conscious (known) sin". The "sin" is the SAME. "Transgression of the Law" IS "sin" (whether known or not). God is not treating the "sin" differently. He is treating persons differently - based upon their awareness of Him and His Law. Awareness makes the difference. The LORD "overlooked the times of ignorance, but now commands all men to repent" WHEN they hear the truth. This is JUST. Every human being has "sinned" (consciously or unconsciously) therefore their "sin" must be "covered" by the blood of Christ or they will die eternally. This includes Mary. This tells me that Jesus did not "sin" - even before He reached the age of understanding. This is only possible if He was filled with the spirit of His Father - from birth. Those who die in ignorance HAVE sinned. They are "covered" by the blood of Jesus. But they still cannot receive eternal life. Not yet anyway. One must knowingly CHOOSE to serve God before he can receive the gift of eternal life. Those who died in ignorance could not CHOOSE, therefore they must be resurrected to continue their lives, then be taught the ways of the LORD, then CHOOSE to serve Jesus Christ as LORD before they can receive eternal life. The only good time frame for this resurrection is the 8th millennium. "The rest of the dead" are NOT the rebellious wicked from 6000 years. They will be those who lived and died in ignorance, who never had the opportunity to CHOOSE.

Joeb began by saying that the written ordinances were placed "in the side of the Ark". He said they were facing the Israelites and were facing "against" them. His argument is based on the physical positioning of the Written Torah, within the Tabernacle. First: There was no instruction to put a pocket of any sort on the side of the Ark of the Covenant. There is no record that the Ark had any pocket on its outside. The words translated "in the side of" just mean "next to" or "to the side of" - the Ark. Deuteronomy 31:26 “Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.” (KJV) Deuteronomy 31:26 “Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;” (NKJ) Deuteronomy 31:26 “Take this book of the Torah and put it next to the ark with the covenant of ADONAI your God, so that it can be there to witness against you.” (CJB) “put it beside the ark” (Deu 31:26 NRS) “place it beside the ark” (Deu 31:26 NIV) “place it beside the ark” (Deu 31:26 NAU)

Moses WROTE down the Law which the LORD dictated. He put that Law in a pocket on the outside of the Ark - in the MHP. He told the Israelites that it would remain there, to serve as a "witness" - should they rebel against this Law. It would also "witness" to their obedience, and therefore right to the blessing, should obedience be the case. Jesus obeyed, and therefore this Law serves as "witness" FOR Him, that He may claim the promised blessing. It was proof they had been warned of the penalty for rebellion. And it was proof the Law had been communicated. I don't understand how that Law could be "nailed to the cross".

Mary needed to be conceived "without sin" so that Jesus could be born "without sin". [Not Bible] This because "sin" is passed on to every human being from Adam - the original sinner. [Not Bible] This is the DOCTRINE of "original sin". It seems that "sin" is transmissible from Father to sons and daughters. Which means we all inherit sin. This is the reason for infant baptism, to "bestow initial sanctifying grace" - to cover the "sin" inherited by the infant, from Adam. [Not Bible] The "baptism" is by effusion (pouring water over the forehead of the infant). [Not Bible] When that baptized person actually sins a "mortal sin", he loses most of that grace, and the "Sacrament of Penance" becomes necessary in order to restore lost grace. [Not Bible] COMMENT: It makes one think that "grace" is something pumped out - like gas at a filling station. At each step Catholic DOCTRINE differs from Bible doctrine.

Okay... How about the Immaculate Conception? This one, above all other RCC doctrines, attacks the gospel. In fact this is one of two doctrines that the Papacy has claimed infallibility*, *Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of theAssumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact confirmed by the Church's magisterium. [ John Paul II (24 March 1993). "General Audience Address of 24 March 1993"]

Yes, because if Congress can't pass a budget that won't be vetoed, that leads to a government shutdown. And the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would be affected if a shutdown were to last long enough. Conveniently, that gives the opponents of fiscal discipline a trump card. Nobody wants to face a starving mob.

"He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross." - Colossians 2:14 NET The word χειρόγραφον (ceirografon) used here is a technical term, it refers to a "legal bond", a "certificate of indebtedness". It's clear that it wasn't the law itself that was nailed to the cross, but the "ceirografon", the document of our debt.

Gregory, I doubt I would EVER discuss the Inquisition with a Catholic. Rather I would show them - from their own Catholic approved Bible, the truths of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus, of the unconsciousness in sleep of the dead, of prayer to God our Father in the name of Jesus. I do believe there will be many persons in the Kingdom who lived as Catholic Christians during their lives. If they responded to the spirit of Christ, if they were kind to others, if they lived up to the light that they had concerning the Gospel - they will be in the Kingdom. It is not a requirement for salvation, that one have perfect understanding in all things Biblical. Who of us would be there, if that were the case. That being the case, does this mean we should leave "baby Christians" as they are? No. My (formerly Catholic) friend lived in FEAR. She has told me many times, how the truth concerning the sleep of death, and of real peace with God through Jesus, has given her immense RELIEF from the constant FEAR she once felt. To be sure, I want to make strong arguments against a variety of Roman Catholic DOCTRINES. But the motivation behind these arguments is one of love.

The LORD made a covenant with Israel at Mt Sinai, which was still in effect at the time of Jesus’ death. It certainly was not limited to “one week”. The “New Covenant” did not take effect until Christ died, and it is still in effect. I know of no covenant which God or Christ made with anyone for only 7 days, or 7 years. Let’s look at the passage again. Daniel 9:27 “Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.” (NKJ) The one who makes a covenant for one “seven” is the same “one” who will “bring an end to sacrifice and offering”. He is the one who “will destroy the City and the Sanctuary”. Who is he? Let’s look at two verses from another prophecy given to Daniel. Daniel 11:31 “Forces sent by him shall occupy and profane the Temple and fortress. They shall abolish the regular burnt offering and set up the abomination that makes desolate.” (NRS) NOTE: In this passage, the one who will abolish the regular burnt offering, is ALSO the one who will set up the abomination that causes desolation. This doesn’t sound like something Jesus would do. Notice: The abomination of desolation is set up in place of, the regular (continual) burnt offering. Daniel 12:11 “From the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that desolates is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred ninety days.” (NRS) The regular sacrifice is abolished, and the abomination is set up - at the SAME time. Jesus did not desecrate the Temple or bring an end to sacrifice at the Temple (by force). The Romans did THAT. They leveled the Temple and put up a pagan Temple to Jupiter. This scenario will be repeated during the last years of this age!

How was the "ceremonial laws" against us? Heb 10:1 For the Law...was only a shadow of the good things to come (i.e., Christ righteousness)... verse 3: in those sacrifices (i.e., the ceremonial laws - see Lev 23) there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. I submit to you that the "handwriting of the ordinances" was the record of our sins. These sins were "against us" and placed in death row awaiting the judgment.