Leaderboard

In a previous post the following comment was made about Rachael, as I have quoted it below: To suggest that someone lied is to say that the person knowingly attempted to deceive . That is well beyond what is acceptable in this forum. It is acceptable to say that one is wrong. It is acceptable to say that a statement is false. But, it is not acceptable to say that a well respected member of this forum knowingly made a statement that the member knew to be false. I often disagree with Rachael. But I consider her to be honest, sincere and a valued member of this forum.

Finally, an attempt to an answer in this thread that was not an attack on the president! However, I do disagree on a few things. While they may be correct about the word for homosexual being derived from a word that comes from adults molesting kids at the gym, Leviticus can't be more explicit when it says two men should not lie together. However, in pioneer days strangers would often rent part of a bed and be sleeping together. This situation has brought out accusations of homosexuality regarding those so sleeping. One such website even claimed EGW was engaged in lesbian activities for such a sleeping arrangement. But I would believe that sleeping arrangement was not what Leviticus was referring to. As far as our theologians, they are rapidly losing any influence with me due to the positions and behaviors they engage in. To be clear, I do find new information in dedicated pastors who seem to be serious students of the Bible, but some seem to be pushing agendas. So, just because an SDA theologian concludes something does not mean I will fall in behind their wagon. I must read and make my own conclusions as to their "new light." While I believe new light MAY come out, it often comes out from some other source than the theologians. The theologians of Jesus's time weren't very accurate either. The purpose of the linked article was to show the slippage of morals in this country and culture. What used to be unthinkable is beginning to be promoted. What used to be unthinkable several decades ago is now normalized in law. So, this push to normalize sex with kids is a continued effort to destroy children before they can even grow up enough to make rational decisions to be a follower of God.

Kevin; I have no doubt of your good intentions here; but this comes across as really convoluted, among other things. Very strange "Bible exegesis" to be sure. It would have made some difference had you included some actual reference in scripture so that we actually have an idea what you are talking about. But the thing about "mixed grain bread," sorry, but thats just way out in left field. I would need to see some specific scripture examples to explain where you are coming from, before I would be able to say more.

I agree, sorry @8thdaypriest that this happened to you. But don't stay away because of it, we need you!

I did not go into detail and did not point out the specific texts, but I did not make this up. This has been pointed out by professors from Atlantic Union College, Andrews University and Loma Linda University and pointed out in a lecture of the Adventist Theological Society. Professors from both sides of the debate agree with what I summarized above, and as I said they disagree on whether to take the narrow or wide application.

HEY ALL ONLY 4 more days until Thanksgiving Day in the United States dgrimm60

I am hesitant to say this, but feel that this post needs an answer. There are problems with this reasoning, both for those who opposed this behaviors and those who support these behaviors. Looking at the Bible texts used against the LGT (I'm purposely leaving out the initial "B") community: They fit into three categories: First category is chapters talking about what is and is not appropriate worship at the sanctuary. The Canaanites believed that to get their crops to grow and animals and wives to give birth and for their families not to starve that they needed to try to help Baal and the gods of life get victory over Leviathan and the gods of death. Thus they would come to their temples to worship and part of the worship was to unite the life forces by having bread of mixed grains, clothing of mixed textiles and everyone,, man, women, children and animals to all have sex with each other. (Do any of you wear cloths of mixed textiles and eat multigrain bread, such as Ezekiel 4:9 bread? If so you are breaking this same law.) Second category are stories that point out a crazy idea that the Canaanites came to believe. They believed that if they raped a man that they were stealing some of his life force, and if raped to death that they would have all of his life force. This meant that food that would have grown in their victim's garden back home will now grow in the raper's garden in say Sodom. Animals that would have been born to their victim's flock back home will now be born to the raper's flock in Sodom. Children that would have been born to their victim's wife back home will now be born to the raper's wife in Sodom. They believed raping someone would put more food on their table to feed their children. The third category is a word in the New Testament translated "Homosexual" but which is a specific term for adult men having sex with little boys at the gymnasium. Our theologians are aware of these three categories. What is being fought over is whether to have a narrow reading of the text and to only apply them into their context, or if we should have a broad reading of the text and expand them beyond their immediate context. Those who hold to the narrow reading says that the text does not apply to homosexuals. Those who hold to the broad reading say that while these texts are not about homosexuality that we still should widen the text beyond it's context and apply the text to homosexuals. Personally I will let our theologians argue out whether we should hold to the narrow or broad application. If the narrow reading wins out, the post is afraid that it will be a slippery slope for all kinds of other issues such as pedifiles and beastiality. But while the narrow interpretation of the text would allow for committed relationship whether it be heterosexual or homosexual couples, adults who have made a choice. Children and animals are unable to make this choice. And of course for Christians we have that New Testament word that is translated homosexual but is talking about adult men having sex with little children. And as for the "B" Bisexuality, the Bible is against promiscuity. The narrow reading of the texts does not do away with the New Testament talking against pedifiles, nor does it do away with the Bible talking against promiscuity. Any couple would still have to live up to not being promiscuous. And we will need to protect children and animals who cannot make the decision.

? ✨ try the spirits ? ? 1John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

The Ten Most Iconic LIFE Magazine Photos On November 23, 1936, the first issue of the pictorial magazine Life is published. The magazine quickly established itself as the home of iconic photography. Here are the 10 most iconic LIFE Magazine photos... Tank Man in Tienanmen Square A lone man stands in front of a line of tanks, preventing them from moving forward. This simple image has become one of the best-known photos of the 20th century, and possibly in the history of photography. The photo was taken in 1989 in Tienanmen Square in Beijing during the student protests that ultimately led to a major crackdown on human rights. The photo used in LIFE Magazine was taken by Jeff Widener, who was stuck in his hotel, dealing with a concussion from being hit with a rock earlier. Widener was not the only photographer who managed to photograph the scene; Stuart Franklin, for example, also got a shot for the agency Magnum Photos, and his film was smuggled out of China by a French student, who hid the photo among some containers of tea. Reaching Out (Vietnam War) Sometimes photos don't reach the public for a few years, and the Reaching Out photo is one of those. Taken in 1966, it didn't hit the pages of LIFE Magazine until 1971. The picture, taken during the Vietnam War by Larry Burrows, shows Machine Gunnery Sargeant Jeremiah Purdie reaching toward a wounded soldier resting on the ground. Purdie himself is wounded, with a bloody bandage wrapped around his head. The picture became one of the best windows into what soldiers were experiencing in Vietnam. Man on the Moon Taken by Neil Armstrong as he and Buzz Aldrin stood on the moon on July 20, 1969, this photo remains one of the most iconic in human history. This was the first time humans had stood on the moon's surface (conspiracy theories aside). Aldrin is shown standing in a shallow depression, looking toward Armstrong, reflections visible in his helmet's face shield. Time reports that while Aldrin wasn't happy being the second man to step on the moon, he did get to be the man on the moon viewers saw because Armstrong was behind the camera. Martin Luther King Jr. at a D.C. Rally in 1957 Another picture that didn't appear for years was a photo of Martin Luther King Jr. taken in 1957, standing in front of a crowd at the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom in Washington, D.C. King's back is to the camera manned by Paul Schutzer, with his arms outstretched and the Washington Monument in the background. The photo was not run until April 1968, after Dr. King had been assassinated. However, it became one of the better-known photos of King as it showed both Dr. King and the scale of the crowd at one of the earlier Civil Rights rallies in the country. Gandhi and His Spinning Wheel Margaret Bourke-White's 1946 photo of Mohandas Gandhi sitting on his floor reading, with his spinning wheel in the foreground, is one of the more indelible images taken of the leader. Gandhi practiced spinning while he was in prison and kept spinning his own cloth after his release. Spinning became so important to Gandhi that Bourke-White was instructed to learn to spin before she could take the photo. The photo ran in 1948, after Gandhi's assassination. Black Power Salute at the 1968 Olympics When Tommie Smith and John Carlos stood on the podium to accept medals at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics after winning sprinting competitions, they made a political statement that was simple but powerful. Both men raised one arm, hand making a fist, in the Black Power salute. They made the gesture as a statement showing that all wasn't as well as people thought and that struggles continued at home. Tommie Smith also removed his shoes and stood in socks, a symbolic gesture meant to represent African-American poverty. The picture was taken by John Dominis. The VJ Day Kiss Alfred Eisenstadt's 1945 photo of a sailor grabbing a nurse and kissing her in Times Square in New York as VJ Day was announced is a classic image from World War II. The photo is actually controversial because, if you look closely, you see the kiss wasn't exactly mutual. The nurse has her hand curled into a fist, wedged in between her and the sailor, and many have come to see the photo as one of sexual assault. Greta Zimmer Friedman, the woman in the photo, said there actually wasn't that much to the kiss itself, as passionate as it looked on film. Graham W. Jackson Sr. and Goin' Home Chief Petty Officer Graham Jackson is depicted in Ed Clark's 1945 photo playing an accordion and weeping openly as President Franklin D. Roosevelt's casket passes by. The song Jackson played was Goin' Home, and the photo came to represent the link between FDR and the fight for civil rights. However, Jackson had actually played music for FDR several times before FDR's death, so he was mourning a truly personal loss. Marlboro Man Clarence Long, or C.H. Long, was a Texas cowboy immortalized in a LIFE Magazine photo by Leonard McCombe in 1949. The picture is simple -- just a shot of Long's face looking past the camera, cigarette dangling from his mouth -- but it inspired the Marlboro Man image used to promote cigarettes for years. Audience Watching a 3D Movie 3D movies nowadays are distinctly different from the versions shown in the 1950s, but one photo from that time will likely represent the genre forever. J.R. Eyerman's photo, taken in November 1952 at the premiere of Bwana Devil, the first full-length movie filmed in color 3D, shows an audience all wearing identical 3D glasses, with the glasses seeming to take over their identities. The glasses are the first thing you notice, and you have to really look to start distinguishing audience members from one another. That didn't really concern anyone; instead, the audience members reported that the movie wasn't that good and that wearing the glasses for that long was kind of uncomfortable.

Happy Sabbath to you, too. Thanks for sharing your scenario with us.

If one actually does look into the history that can be verified, the first thing to point out is that those payments did not admit to guilt of anything. They were made for other reasons entirely. You are cooking up a bunch of "sin" where you have no way of knowing, nor do you know where DT or anyone else stands in God's eyes, so its time to stop all this "standing" you think you are doing and just SIT DOWN. No matter how many Bible verses you quote, you still cannot say how DT stands before God.

I wonder who is not being rational when a person cannot accept that God forgives confessed sin committed years (even decades) ago. God forgives sinners when they repent. He remembers their sin no more. Do you know for a fact that the sitting President has not repented of his past sins? Do you know his heart? If you are without sin, feel free to cast stones. If you are NOT without sin, please stop your judgement and condemnation. For the record, I don't think any of us condone sin. I accept that the sitting President was (and is) a sinner. So were/are every other human that ever lived except Yeshua. There is a difference between accepting that someone has sinned and condoning their sin. For example, I accept that people have abortions; but by no means do I condone it.

Social Security is not "politics"; it is a way to address the moral obligation for a nation to take care of it's sick and elderly. It's not perfect; and it is manipulated by politicians; but Social Security takes care of a lot of my needs in retirement. That being said, I would not be surprised if SS is politically weaponized in the future.

Because - unlike us private citizens - the government can just print more money. But I believe a day of reckoning is coming.

I think its time to relax on your DT attacks. Calling him "an adulterer" and then basing that as a reason for God not using/wanting to use him would mean that NO ONE on earth could ever be a Church leader or any other thing in any other church, because none of us meet the "Bible qualifications" anymore. It is simpler to go with God's well-established plan that He can and He DOES use all kinds of people in His work, and, in fact, we all quote from an adulterer almost every-time we read the Bible in The Book of Psalms! (to use your principle - stretched out to its farther reaches). Its none of our business what "moral law" we think our national leaders have broken. For one thing, unless you were a fly on the wall and saw first-hand, why would you hijack this thread just to "prove" something you can only go by newspaper innuendos and cliches to "prove"? None of us can deny the text from Dan 2: 21 Like it or not; DT is there for a reason - and not just any reason - its GODS REASON. I could be "wrong" but from what I know, DT has done more to help "the Church" than most other US politicians in recent memory. Is he perfect? No. Did God put him there? Yes. (lol, I cant believe, Im a Canadian and just said all that)