Leaderboard

Make that two.

Gerry, Above is what I suggested would be an interesting discussion. But, I did say it would most likly focus on'sexual orientation. Was I not correct? The elephant isn't what the church did, but rather our own attitudes on how others should be treated and what baptism really means. It is not just about homosexuals, but many others as well. Our eyes burn bright with righteous indignation when the subject of homsexual and church come up, but would you be surprised at all the others who have been baptized with sins, according to some, in their lives and still practicing the same? Would it surprise you that in the past people have been rejected for baptism, such as ring wearing, and other 'standards' imposed by humans? So, no, I don't believe the subject should be discussed just because this was about homosexuals, but rather our attitudes.

I don't personally advocate the "doing of anything" to the creator of Barely Adventist. But I will try to make sure that I spend more time dwelling on those things found in Phillipians 4:8.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! -- Isaiah 5:20

Okay, so looks like most of you are holding up the Barely Adventist articles as sins against God and man... What do you advocate doing to the creator of Barely Adventist? Would tar and feathers be enough? Perhaps several days of public humiliation in the stocks? How about public whipping? A bit of dunking, perhaps? Make the author wear a big embroidered "S" for "sinner" on his chest for the rest of his days? How about shunning him until he recants of the sin you are condemning him of? All the above could be done with the saints standing around holding their Bibles, loudly thanking God... that they are better than he...

Humour has left the building.......(maybe it was never there)

Thank you, Gail, for pointing out the inherent cruelty in satire. Barely Adventist is not even skillful satire. It is just rude, crude, and obvious hatred. A skillful satirist can cut your heart out, leave it lying on the ground beside you and you with a puzzled look on your face wondering just exactly what he meant, and walk away laughing at your stupidity for not understanding what he just did to you. I know. That used to be me. I thank God for showing me just how evil it really is, and how much the devil rejoices to see people hurt by it. Those of you who rejoice in satire do not know what it is you are rejoicing in. It is being judgmental in the worst way possible.

Actually, The Catholic Church has its own satire page.... It's called "Eye of the Tiber"... http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/ Lutherans have their own satire page, too... http://lutheransatire.org/ other denominations have satire sites, as well...

Exactly, what I was saying! I agree with your post Green!

We have quoted many, many such verses Samie. Many.

Look at the world around you. What are the big political movements of today? Homosexuality is great. Cross gender is wonderful. If you believe in God's word you're an extremist and a hater. That's what the world says about those who believe what God has to say. Those political views are now being expressed daily, and with the same rhetoric, inside the church. And you cannot see this? Maybe not. You pretty much express the same beliefs the world does. However, the world and God will always be at odds. They stand for diametrically opposed principles.

Is it really true that there is no "worse of a sinner than anyone of us"? Must every sinner continue in his or her sin and remain a sinner? Was Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross really in vain? Are we all going to simply be lost because we cannot obtain victory over sin? Does the Bible admonish us in vain to "endure" to the end, to "fight" the good fight of faith, to "resist" the devil so that he flees from us, and to know and understand that God will make a way of "escape" from temptations?

The Son of God is described as emptying Himself, in order to incarnate with the "nature of Abraham". Of what did He emptying Himself? Philippians 2:7-8 “rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient unto death-- even death on a cross! (NIV) "made Himself nothing" is translated in other versions as "emptied Himself". Hebrews 2:16 “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham” (KJV). Hebrews 2:9 “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.” Christ took the nature of Abraham. Abraham was flesh. Flesh is "dust". It is MORTAL. It can die. Angels cannot die physically. They can only be destroyed in "the lake of fire" - which is spirit death. Jesus became human, so that He could be "obedient unto death" AND then be resurrected by His Father. There is no resurrected from "the lake of fire". I believe He emptied Himself of omnipotence, omniscience, and the power to be in all places by His spirit (omnipresence). In other words He "emptied Himself" of His divine powers. He must overcome AS A MAN, in order to recover the dominion of earth FOR MANKIND. Psalm 115:16 “The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind.” (NIV) God gave this earth to mankind. God would not take back His “gift”. It belonged to mankind, to enjoy with God’s blessing, or to destroy - without Him. The promise of dominion for mankind (made in Eden) was conditional, upon perfect loyalty (therefore perfect obedience). Mankind broke that covenant. To recover that dominion, for mankind, God needed a PERFECT MAN. The Son of God fulfilled every requirement. He was perfectly obedient and faithful to covenant, therefore God can give to Him dominion over all things. This is what happens in Daniel 7. The first Adam lost the dominion - because of disobedience. The “last Adam” would recover the dominion FOR MANKIND - by perfect obedience - AS A MAN. Jesus IS called "the last Adam" (I Cor 15:45). Satan took over dominion of earth. when God could no longer legally protect Adam/Eve. God allowed Satan to do this, but He protects those who cry out to Him, and seek His forgiveness. One day soon, the dominion will be given to Christ Jesus. With the dominion, comes the right to judge, which is why "all judgment has been committed to the Son". Daniel 7:13-14 “I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.” There is a study on my website titled "DOMINION". http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/11-DOMINION.pdf

Bonnie, don't you have at least one ticklish spot!

I looked at 10 or so translations of Matthew 1:20. Every one rendered the words "an angel of the Lord" NOT "the angel of the LORD". "An angel" could be any one of the angels loyal to the Father, NOT necessarily the pre-incarnate Christ. The angel Gabriel was sent by God to Mary before she conceived. Gabriel is "an angel of the LORD". In verse 24 the text continues saying that Joseph "did as the angel of the LORD commanded him". The word "the" is an added word to help our English. It means that Joseph did as the angel who appeared to him commanded. It WAS a dream. God can portray anything in a dream, even something that does not presently exist. Right? Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me" (Jn 6:44). So God the Father was working by His spirit on the earth WHILE Jesus was a human (even a fetal one).

I vote for a reinstatement of the Inquisition - maybe headed up by Shepard's Rod this time. Round up everyone who has even read Barely Adventist. Make an example out of them - and while we're at it, let's get everyone who uses satire or sarcasm. Persecute it as a hate crime! Lock them up in a room with nothing but a full set of "Testimonies"!

Just my opinion - If it would have been "impossible" for Christ to sin, couldn't satan call "foul"? The very fact that Christ was temped in all ways yet was without sin (Heb. 4:15) tells me that it was possible for Christ to sin. How can something be a temptation if we are totally immune to falling for the temptation? The fact that God sent His Son" in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3) tells me that Christ could have sinned (but He didn't), or else He would have been sent in the likeness of sinless flesh.

Being just a little picky that everything was not mentioned that would assure you of what was intended in the statement. What is happening in the heart is between the individual and God. Not you and me.

I dunno. I think God can do anything He wants, including being in 2 places (Mary's womb and Joseph's dream) at the same time. Paul says the rock in the wilderness of the Israelite exodus was Christ (who is the exact image (physical presence) of the Father. Jesus Himself says that before Abraham was, I AM. Jesus was in the OT and will be at the Second Coming the Commander of the Lord's army.

Say what??? How in the world would someone read into the first statement what was said in the second??

I know several families that sent their children there. I can only imagine how offended the parents of some of these way above average girls would be if I wished them sucess on catching a husband.

It has been running joke for a long time,not just there.Maybe there are parents that would spend that kind of money in search of a husband for their daughters.Most that do want their children in an adventist college first and foremost want them to receive a education. We did not pay for college for our sons but if we had that would most certainly have been a important consideration. Their education was important but not anymore so than who they would spend the rest of their lives with. I have heard several parents that were offended by it over the years. I would be curious as to the personal beliefs of those that write the satire. The personal belief is evident here by those that use the same type of mockery to mock the opinions they disagree with. Are those that write all this "humorous satire" personally so dismissive and mocking of those that dont hold their same religious viewpoint?

Personally I think the statement more ignorant than funny or being upset. I seriously doubt most parents spend thousands so their child can find a spouse. It is where I wanted mine to go so if they did choose their mate in college they were more likely to meet someone that shared their values and beliefs. So called humor at the expense of others or mockery disguised as humor is something other than funny . Many are hurt by it.

Some of us here will not be stepping off the platform to examine it. I hope you will step back up upon it too.

Up until this topic was posted I read Barely Adventist twice. It was hard to distinguish between what some thought was funny on Barely Adventist and the conversations taking place. There was the same snarky,sarcastic mockery used by some posters when a belief or opinion that they disagreed with was shared. The one on Walla Walla mirrors the snarky comments that have been made in the past as "go to an adventist college to find a spouse". My boys went to an adventist college to get an education and Yes, Probaby would find their spouse. I am glad they all followed the same path with their families. Dont choose an adventist college their will be no parental help. Funny or a reason to mock. Fail to see it. The Gc sending cleaning inspectors sounds a lot like the mockery and contempt in the Dress Code topic. Many times mocking contempt is explained away as humor when in reality it is far more judgemental than those they accuse of that and mock

It is certainly proper AND necessary to reexamine our believes now and then. However, if we keep reexamining the 4th commandment, will there ever come a time when Sunday becomes a/the sanctified day? If we reexamine and reexamine the 2nd commandment, will idols eventually become acceptable? Shall we reexamine and parse, reexamine and parse Lev 18:22 & 22:13 until such unions become biblically acceptable?