Leaderboard

I have thought that the word religion used to refer to one's faith. Now it seems religion refers to the brand of faith. You didn't take on a person's religion because it was what was in their their heart. this was sacred domain. Now religion seems to be defined as what is in your head, and spirituality is what is in your heart. There seems to be less sense of the sacred ground of a person's conscience and inner sanctum where only God and angels would tread. This is how there is spiritual abuse. I think spiritual abuse is as common as any other kind of abuse, because if you do not recognize spiritual boundaries you can most likely be blind to many other kinds of boundaries. Only Jesus had every boundary in place within himself, in His relationship to His heavenly Father, and in his relationship to all people, and all His creation. And as Jesus comes into our hearts he brings those options to us, that we would not otherwise see.

Personally I think it's a pity Biden wasn't in the field.

Maybe???? Not quite fair to you.

And the world is still Flat !! Roundness is an illusion! Bible proof...."four corners of the earth"!!!

Robert, there are two studies on my website. 1. "Where are the Dead?" and 2. "Hell - What it's NOT"" Here are the links. You might find something helpful. http://prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/Book Chapters/5-Where are the Dead.pdf http://prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/Book Chapters/6-Hell.pdf

Why do you have to always twist everything like that!?!?! Do you even read anything before you blast away? If you even read just my simple sentence and stopped to think about what it clearly was referring to, you might have actually been slightly restrained from automatically and mistakenly taking it personally and assuming it was about you or even addressed to you, as you seem so adept at doing much of the time. If you don't want to read it, just skip the thread and refrain from commenting. You do not have to weigh in on every topic. And really, why would anything I post be any more intent on insisting anyone think and decide as I do any more than whatever you post is deciding that everyone must take your POV? Especially with what little POV of mine is even expressed by me above? Here, let me try to explain it to you... "When read in conjunction..." There are just two posts preceding mine, both unambiguously referring to only one thing. The linked endorsement by the Washington Post. I didn't write it. I just posted it for others to read and consider, just as Gregory apparently did. My only comment was, that I found it to be clear eyed, meaning it was not blind to Clinton's faults and shortcomings, tending to show some objectivity often lacking in much of the political discourse here and in the media. The other simple point was that I found it to be well stated, in other words, well written. It was not really stating my own POV about Hillary. (Because, remember I didn't write it.) That was just how I read it. That is why I thought it good to post a well written and clear eyed assessment of her for others to read and consider. "...in conjunction with their [the Washington Post editors, reporters and contributors... not me] closing argument about Trump..." If you had just taken a few minutes to read before you blasted away with you ill-founded bitter snarkiness, you would have immediately recognized that reference as being about the clearly linked (twice in fact) extended summary of the Post's assessment of Donald Trump. It is very thorough. "...the choice is unequivocal." What choice? What is this topic about? Just read the title. Open the link and read that title. It is about the choice of the Washington Post to endorse Hillary Clinton. It is not about my choice. Or yours. It is about their endorsement of Hillary. While the linked article is about her, it makes reference obviously to Trump, but mostly points the reader to their closing argument about him for the details about their conclusion about him. So let me clarify this for you. Reading the endorsement alone, it is clear regarding their choice to endorse Hillary. But include reading their closing argument about Trump leaves no doubt about their choice between the two. No equivocation. It is abundantly clear how and why the editors of the Washington post made their choice to endorse Hillary. You don't have to agree. Nor make a similar choice. But do so with the most complete information from reliable sources. That is why I posted it.

True story. I was walking past a makeup display for the Sinful Colors line at Walmart. Now, while the popular understanding of sin is being naughty and rebellious, the proper meaning is missing the mark, which is closer to failure than evil. So, I read it as 'Failed Colors,' and chuckled.

This is not a political statement. Such are not allowed in this thread. But, I have voted. I find it interesting that in these last days of the campaign, more and more people will already have made their choice and voted. As such, less and less of what the candidates say will be effective. Regardless of how you vote, I encourage all to do so. In California, where I now live: 1) You can register to vote up to and including the day of the election. 3) Mail-in ballots will be counted if received up to three (3) working days after the election and if postmarked on or before election day. NOTE: I realize that some of the above may generate discussion. That would likely be a political discussion. If so, please take that to another section of Club Adventist as political discussions are not allowed in this section.

Good words, Gregory. One of my favorite quotes is something like "When the Holy Spirit leaves the church, they have nothing left but religion." There is a big difference between having a relationship with God and His Son and having a relationship with a denomination. I would have no problem leaving the SDA Church except for 1 thing - I agree with the spirit and veracity of their underlying premises. I may take issue with some of their fundamentals; but for the most part I like the culture, diversity, and depth of scriptural knowledge. I appreciate the fact that (on CA at least) most posters can debate without becoming (overly) disagreeable. It is sad that almost 50% (by my experience more than 50%) of new converts leave the church. The main reason I hear for people leaving boils down to be that the church didn't turn out to be what they initially thought it would be like. It is only my opinion; but that statistic might be much lower if we focused our evangelism on bringing people to Christ rather than to the SDA church. I believe that it was Gregory who pointed out that in most places, the "default" process is to baptize someone; and then immediately vote them into church membership. Converts should have a free choice of a church which suits them just like they have a free choice to become a believer. That being said, given the growing diversity among SDAs, people (in big cities at least) should be able to find an SDA congregation that suits them. Just where I live, the cultures at various SDA Churches run the gamut from being traditional conservative "hell-fire and brimstone" churches to bordering on charismatic - from people who focus solely on EGW to those who focus totally on the Bible.

That figure seems consistent with the long recognized statistic that 50% or less of members still listed on any given church's books attend that church regularly. If memory serves me correctly, "regularly" has been generously defined as low as only either once or twice a month. The question that should be focused on with serious intent is how inflated/reliable are our current membership numbers. Perhaps we should be somewhat more modest in our claims that we are a church with 19.5 million members worldwide. Realistically, could it be as low as 9 million? The more disheartening reality is that because of this disturbing statistic, the number of former Adventists far outnumber those that we claim are members by our own statistics. In NAD the estimates are that there are 4-10 times as many former Adventists. If we could miraculously reclaimed all of those that have left us, NAD membership would swell to 5-11 million members! There is reason to believe that the reality may not be substantially different worldwide.

Multiple posts have discussed the idea that Monica (and perhaps others) set out to seduce President Bill Clinton. Our society today, and professional organizations, strongly consider that sexual relationships between two person with a major difference of power to be ethically wrong. E.G. Teaching organizations will typically consider that sexual relations between a teacher/professor and a student to be wrong. Sexual relations between a counselor and a counselee are considered wrong. From this standpoint a sexual relationship between the U.S. President and an Intern represents a major power difference and is considered wrong. Personally I believe that such should be considered legal rape. Sometimes it is and at other times and places it is not legally rape. Where it is not, I believe that the law should be changed. Perhaps Monica and some of the others set out to seduce Bill Clinton? I do not know. But, I do know this that in any situation where such a power difference exists the person with the power should be able to recognize that transference is occurring and be able to appropriately respond. While it may be true that Monica has some responsibility, the major responsibility rests with the former President. It is on him that blame must be focused. NOTE: Transference is normal in humans. It is just as likely to be negative as it is to be positive. IOW, transference can result in a person strongly disliking another person.