Leaderboard

This is a time to deal with Stan's warning. As I recall in the past when this topic came up, there were people who hijacked the thread and did not leave it in the thread where the issue was discussed, but started hijacking several other threads so that no matter where we turned their they were with their arguments and all other discussion stopped. If you started a thread saying "Good morning" they would soon be writing "Yes, and this is only one morning, not three just as you think there are three gods so you better stop that and accept our view and give up your Trinitarian view..." I think that if we are civil, share what we believe and try to clarify our understandings and limit it to this thread and not have some people hijack this and spread it like an epidemic going through other threads then this time it can end better than before.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit?utm_campaign=mattyglesias&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter One or two words I wouldn't choose, but a good, clear, informed and informative piece.

And, the JWs say that there is NO difference between created and begotten in regard to Jesus Christ. Just like some SDAs. But, Ellen White, a true SDA, states that there IS a difference.

The "Arian nations" were those who had accepted the doctrine of Arius - that Christ was begotten from God (who thus became "the Father"). It is worth noting that "the head of Christ is God" (I Cor 11:3). God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ are NOT co-equal. When "the end" comes, Jesus will "be subject to" God His Father - for eternity. That is hierarchy. 1 Corinthians 15:24 "Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection," it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all." PS: There is NO MENTION of a third divine being in this hierarchy.

Hmmmm......right on point! One thought occurred to me about this whole debate, 'the Bible/theology doesn't forbid or give women......', did God die and only the Bible is left? Do we not believe in the HS anymore or Gods presence in guiding/leadiing His church/people? All of the studies concentrate on the Bible for the 'okay' one way or the other. Nothing is studied on the abilities and results of the person who have been chosen by the HS or the individuals themselves. The Bible I understand talks about the results of peoples lives not a long prerequisite list. My conclusion, for a long time, has been humans not wanting to give up their control over others and letting God be in control. Do we teach that as individuals it is all about a battle to put the control of our lives in Gods hands and not our own? Should not the corporate church be doing the same?

Enabled said below: That is not true. It is true that those who either came from or were influenced by the Christian Connection were not Trinitarian. But, out founding fathers included people who came from other denominations and were Trinitarian. By the way, our founders include people other than males. ]

See: http://conversation.spectrummagazine.org/t/dont-miss-it-hacksaw-ridge-producer-explains-why-not/12337 In the above, an SDA explains his thinking about Doss and why he recommends that SDAs view the R rated movie which is violent. I personally agree that it should be seen by SDA members. 1) As a society we send our men and women into battle in armed combat. Few, (American SDAs) outside of those who have actually served in combat, know what war is like. NOTE: Yes there are people who have lived in a combat zone and have experienced it. I believe that viewing this film will give some context to our society when we consider sending our men and women into battle. 2) To understand what Doss did, we must understand the conditions under which he served in both battle and in his training. This must not be sugar-coated. 3) The HR film centers the actions of Doss in his faith and practice. We sometimes need to review the life of one who lived their faith.

What about Green. I have not seen him for some time.

Been thinking about him as well.

Interesting that Lucifer was called by E G White "third power in the Kingdom" Daniel was also "third power in the Kingdom" a good example of her intended meaning as Nebuchadnezzar was not the first power but ruled under his Fathers authority over a city and the armies of his Father. No coincidence here. Christ rules until there is victory for his Fathers throne.

It is significant to consider what is LEFT OUT of NT Scripture passages. Ephesians 4:6 “... one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (No other spirit mentioned) This is why I say the "spirit" is the spirit OF God our Father, which flows through Christ to us. We are supposed to PRAY to the Father, in the name of Christ His Son. (No mention of another being.) Luke 11:2 “So He said to them, ‘When you pray, say: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven’” (Matt. 6:10). So - the Father's will is supreme, and the coming kingdom will be the kingdom of "Our Father". No mention of a third being. In the Gospels, "God" is "our Father". John 20:17 "I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’”

No outward shrines may be visible, there may be no image for the eye to rest upon, yet we may be practicing idolatry. It is as easy to make an idol of cherished ideas or objects as to fashion gods of wood or stone. Thousands have a false conception of God and His attributes. They are as verily serving a false god as were the servants of Baal. Are we worshiping the true God as He is revealed in His Word, in Christ, in nature, or are we adoring some philosophical idol enshrined in His place? God is a God of truth {LHU 143.4} Let the brightest example the world has yet seen be your example, rather than the greatest and most learned men of the age, who know not God, nor Jesus Christ whom he has sent. The Father and the Son alone are to be exalted. {YI, July 7, 1898 par. 2} False Conceptions of God Are Idolatry—Are we worshipers of Jehovah, or of Baal? of the living God, or of idols? No outward shrines may be visible; there may be no image for the eye to rest upon; yet we may be practising idolatry. It is as easy to make an idol of cherished ideas or objects as to fashion gods of wood or stone. Thousands have a false conception of God and His attributes. They are as verily serving a false God as were the servants of Baal (The Review and Herald, December 3, 1908). – {1BC 1105.8} Not sure about it being safe to hold a wrong concept of Devinity was the position of Israel when they made a calf out to be a fit representation of the God that had just oommanded them to have no other God's before them, the same God who had just brought them out of Egypt and spoken to them audibly. Just some thoughts.

I will respond to both the Wanderer and Kevin who have stated that they have attended services in which a female deacon took part. As I stated earlier, Pope Francis has stated that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) does not allow females to be deacons, but he is willing, for the reason that I stated to consider allowing such. In general what the RCC allows is contained in their Canon Law, of which I have such a book in my library. However, as I am a former military chaplain, I look for the standard of practice for RCC priests to come from the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA (AMS). The AMS publishes a Priest's Manual which is posted on the Internet and may be accessed at: http://www.milarch.org/atf/cf/{1AF42501-01D5-4EF8-BA48-4450AC27EF98}/Priest's Manual.pdf The following explaination will help you to understand RCC practice in this area: Cleric: A RCC Cleric is what we would likely call clergy. Clerics are limited to Deacons, Priests and Bishops. Presently these are only males. These are all considered to be "Ordinary Ministers." Only Priests and Bishops are allowed to consecrate the bread and the wine and conduct Mass. NOTE: A Cardinal and the Pope meet the requirement to be a bishop. Deacon: A RCC Deacon is presently only a male. Keep in mind that Pope Francis might decide to allow females to become Deacons. Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (EMHC): These may be males and they may be females. The may not conduct Mass. They may not consecrate the bread and the wine. What they may do is distribute previously consecrated bread and wine. They are not Clerics. They may distribute communion to people in hospitals and in their homes. They may distribute such at a Mass, or the priest may be the only one to so distribute at a Mass. Catholic Lay Leader and Catholic Representative: These may be males and they may be females. They may conduct RCC services that do not include Communion. However, proper RCC authority may grant them the authority to conduct a RCC service that includes communion but they cannot consecrate the bread and the wine.

I'm sorry Raphael, but I find the Biblical Texts used for "Headship Theology" have alternative understandings that appear to fit the linguistics/literary structures; archaeology and culture better than the twist that the "headship" interpretation gives them. Second I find too many texts where either the actual text would have to be a contradiction in the Bible is headship theology was true, but do harmonize with the other understandings of the texts used for headship theology. Besides the direct passages there are also possible understandings of texts that also contradict "headship" theology interpretation. So thus two sets of texts that I cannot reconcile with "headship theology." Sadly I have not found among the "Headship" people an attempt to deal with the alternative understandings of their texts nor the strong and not as strong texts that contradict their thesis. Also I have not seen attempts by headship people to explain why our early Adventist leaders tended to be for women's ordination. Especially the fact that (and this was out in the more unsettled territories out west, but John Loughborough would ordain either women or men to pastor those churches, depending on who he thought would do the best job, as he moved on to start churches elsewhere. And that in the early 1900s when Conferences decided to start ordaining women and the Unions agreed, we would have been ordaining women. the only reason why we didn't was because Elder Daniels, while believing that women should have been ordained was concerned that too many of the members thought that the ordination of women was not Biblical and he requested the church to wait until these members could be educated that it is Biblical to ordain women. Now these are two people who were in Mrs. White's inner circle who supported women's ordination and she never corrected them for it. There is even some evidence that she may have supported these views. And since they were in her inner circle, their views could have been a reflection of Mrs. White's understanding. So why did God raise you up to correct Mrs. White's mistake if she made a mistake by supporting those who supported women's ordination instead of stopping them as she did on other topics. But any way with this issue, there are two understandings of the Bible. Both groups are trying to follow the Bible. It is unfair and unkind, and merely superficial to just summarize "Headship is what the Bible teaches, I follow the Bible and those who don't agree with headship are therefore rejecting the Bible" and thus you can ignore the evidence that you are wrong. I believe that the church needs to accommodate those with your understanding. That both sides should be free to express what they understand, allow others to listen and study and to follow the dictates of their conscience in how to understand the Bible. I believe that every church district should allow someone who had problems with women's ordination to be able to attend a church with a male elder without having to drive unreasonable distances. But too many headship people want to FORCE their understanding upon everyone else. The same spirit as Sunday laws. Enforcing your understanding of the scriptures on the rest of us. Too many headship people are making the church into a liar. Mrs. White gave us a few landmarks on which we are to agree. Too many headship people are saying "Mrs. White is a liar, because we need to also agree on headship theology and if you don't accept that then get out!" Due to the freedom in Adventism to follow the Bible according to the dictates of our conscience, the church would make (and revise from time to time) a statement of beliefs which was to clarify what we tended to believe pretty much as a whole vs. beliefs among us that members were free to believe but were minority beliefs that we were free to believe or not believe. Our current list is the 28. And the were purposely written vague enough to allow for different understandings and applications for our different sub groups. The Seventh-day Adventist church has offered a contract: the landmarks and the 28. We have accepted this offer, and therefore have a binding contract. But headship people want to breech this contract and again turn the church into a liar by saying that besides the Landmarks and the 28 that we have agreed to, that we have to accept something that is not in our contract and demands us to from our perspective reject the Bible for a false teaching. Both you and I are fully unified on the landmarks and the 28. This is why we are both Seventh-day Adventists. I have no right to force you to give up headship theology. I have every right to share why I believe it is no more Biblical than going to heaven at death, and if you find reasons that you find convincing then you are free to change. But without that happening I have no right to force you to my understanding of the Bible. I as believing that headship theology would still welcome you and those who believe like you as brothers and sisters in the faith because we are agreed on the landmarks and 28. On the other hand you have no right to force me to give up my honest understanding of the Bible and Mrs. White and have to accept more than the landmarks and 28 to be a Seventh-day Adventist. This is where the issue is. And it is only a superficial wimping out and refusal to really deal with the Bible to just summarize "The Bible teaches headship theology so all you who don't believe this are rejecting the Bible and that settles it for me and you who don't accept it either shape up or get out!"

When I was at Desert Shield/Storm on Christmas Eve we put on a Protestant service in which I gave the sermon. Then one of the nurses was a deacon in the Catholic Church so was going to offer a Midnight service for the Catholics and he asked me to preach my sermon again and to help him with the service.

thanku I will listen to this this weekend. I have much material by this man. Love it.

It's a 5 part series 1. The Mystery of God Singularity Plurality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsk-YLIKzTM 2. The Holy Spirit's Divinity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wEjl6uYGzk 3. The Holy Spirit's Personality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bamDoSCuxww 4. The Holy Spirit's Difficulty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ8TLcjIaMY 5. The Holy Spirit's Victory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMY8oTQD464

The bottom line is the three angel's messages. Who are we to worship? If we worship the wrong person or wrong god, will we receive the mark of the beast and the plagues? Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Living God, became one of us and he gave us an example to follow. Who did he worship? Did he worship a trinity? Did he worship a third being call "god the holy spirit"? Did he worship a being called "god the son"? So, who did he worship? Of. course, he worshiped his Father and his God who is one person and one being. This is who I worship. This is what Jesus Christ taught. This is his doctrine. "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." 2nd John 1:9-11.

i believe there is powerful eternal love that passes between all three members of the Godhead, each one self existent. then there is matchless pure giving love from all three towards all creation. To imagine how selfishness developed in the heart of a created being in the presence of such love is beyond comprehension. it is called the mystery of iniquity. Then the response to the deception, lies, and misrepresentation of such love called upon love to express itself in ways never seen or heard or known, or could be known in any other way. Love is completely selfless, and willing to suffering and deny every comfort to bless those suffering from the power of selfishness. After a few billion eons of eternity the revelation of divine love towards the undeserving will not have lost any of it's luster. To think we are called to be in such so close relation to the trinity by one of the members of God becoming human and still being divine. The head of the human race is a member of the divine God head. God joined himself to us, at great cost to save us, there could be found no other way. And in this lofty position he stoops to comfort, wash, and serve the humblest, degraded, fallen members of His creation, with joy.

Predictable babble, yada-yada, blah-blah..... ABC News' John Santucci and Candace Smith contributed to this report. On the campaign trail today, Donald Trump touted allegations about the Clinton Foundationthat reliable sources say are false and ill-informed. “It was reported last night that the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's pay-for-play corruption,” the Republican presidential nominee said today in Jacksonville, Florida, during his first rally of the day. “The investigation is described as a high priority. It's far-reaching and has been going on for more than one year. It was reported that an avalanche of information is coming in. The FBI agents say their investigation is likely to yield an indictment." ABC News sources, however, indicated those statements -- and the Fox News reports they’re based on -- are inaccurate and without merit. What to Know About the New Clinton-Related Emails The sources acknowledged that the FBI began looking into the Clinton Foundation after the controversial book “Clinton Cash” was published last year. In particular, agents were trying to determine whether donations to the foundation may have been traded for access to Clinton while she was secretary of state. In February, FBI agents presented their findings to senior FBI officials and prosecutors in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, sources said. But the prosecutors and senior FBI officials agreed there was no clear evidence of wrongdoing, and that a criminal case tied to the Clinton Foundation could not be made, according to the sources. "It was not impressive," one source said of the February presentation. "It was not something that [prosecutors] felt they could authorize additional steps for. They were not impressed with the presentation or the evidence -- if you could even call it evidence to that point." Investigators and higher-ups have continued to discuss the matter, but there has been no change in posture, sources said. Authorities still believe there is no evidence of wrongdoing, and they do not believe there is a sufficient reason to pursue charges, according to the sources. The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times first reported many of the details about how the Clinton Foundation-related probe developed. According to the Clinton Foundation, it provides healthy meals to children in nearly 35,000 schools across the United States; trains more than 150,000 farmers in Malawi, Rwanda and Tanzania; and helps more than 11.5 million people across the world gain access to more affordable HIV/AIDS medications.

Tom, how about the hypocrisy of the republican party as a whole!! How soon we forget! http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

I'm not real impressed with the video. There's some misinformation that's being given. (for example, "Wicca" is *not* a synonym for "witchcraft") The claim that the triune pagan gods are cause to discredit the idea of the Christian Trinity is, in my opinion, inane. The idea that anything that has pagan origins — holidays, worship, or anything in daily life — is a reason to throw up our hands and recede from reality, is poppycock. We worship on the Sabbath, Saturday or the pagan day of Saturn. the whole idea of "pastoring" and of giving sermons is of a pagan (Roman and Greek) origin... should we now dismiss the whole population of ministers and pastors and go back to the original Christian assemblage of worship, where everyone is a participant rather than a spectator?

I dream of having my very own Rock Springs like the one in Central Florida. My indoor-outdoor home will be rambling open rooms of timber and stone. Not for weather or protection, but to define my space to have my stuff and visitors. Cougars and deer and ringtail lemurs will stroll about, enjoying themselves. I'll go swim in the springs with my friends and some otters & swans. It doesn't hurt to imagine, even tho it's like Dgrimm says: we have no idea what heaven would really be like except that we will love it and God knows what lifestyle would please each of us.