Leaderboard

I am in my 80's and in reasonably good health. My brain is still active, even if it is somewhat diminished. I have reasonably good physical health. However, I am having problems with my vision. I receive regular eye injections, which were not on my list of things that I wanted do in life. I am aware that my published posts may contain typos that I have not seen. I work on it, but I have not resolved the issue. I have decided that I will not let that stop me from posting. God does not require perfection. If there is anything of value in my posts, God will use them despite my imperfections. Gregory Matthews

We need to be creative in reaching out to the gay community, especially since we have a whole month dedicated to this. One idea is to have a midweek prayer meeting focused on God’s love and the biblical meaning of the rainbow, followed by some light refreshments. I’m just trying to think of ways we can share God’s love and help people connect with the Father. Above all, let’s make sure we don’t let this month pass by without engaging thoughtfully and intentionally.

Some comments on the above discussion: * Challenger's belief in a Godhead of three separate, individual Gods is classic Arianism, and is not the official belief of the SDA Church. * Gustave's belief that God cannot sin, I agree with. That is correct. I have never heard of any SDA claiming that God could sin. I suppose such could be found. I simply do not recall such being said. * Christ, in His human life was both "fully God" and "fully human." I do not understand that, but I believe it. I simply assume that in eternity I will be informed on that issue. In the meantime, I trust in that which I do not understand. * As to the exact human nature of Christ at His birth. The SDA Church is not united on this issue. Differences exist. Obviously only one group is correct, and there is no agreement as to which group is the correct one. NOTE: For the purpose of clarity, I will further comment on the above. Some SDAs teach that at His birth; Christ had the same human nature as did Adam at his creation. Other SDAs teach that at His birth; Christ had the same human nature as we have when we are born today. I am not certain that the Catholic position on the doctrine of "original sin" can be read into the thinking of this group of SDAs, but this is well beyond the level of what I want to discuss.

Grey hair can often be a mineral deficiency. Copper is very important for hair color. So if your brother is getting gray at twenty, he may want to have his hair analyzed for mineral deficiency. Or increase his minerals like copper.

This view eventually grew to be a possibility, but it was not yet a developed theory by Jesus day. Jesus celebrating Hanukkah did not need it to be connected to the 2300 evenings-mornings. Neither the 2300 days or 1150 days really fit the Antichous situation. While there is evidence that the book of Daniel was used to give hope to go through the situation, the theory that Daniel was about the Antichous situation had not yet formed. You are taking later thought and theories and assuming that they were seen as fact prior to the development of the theory. Also, there is too much in Daniel that does not fit the Antichous situation. Jesus placed the abomination that causes desolation, that the theory applied to the Antichous situation, Jesus said that Daniel's prophecy was still future. The temple was redidicated after the Antichous persecution. This redidication was celebrated by the Jews. Jesus celebrated the event. Jesus used the consept of the event as the setting for the resurrection of Lazarous. But this does not mean that Jesus tied this event to the book of Daniel. We remember D day every June 6. This does not mean that we see D day as a specific fulfillment and the message of the book of Daniel, even thought the Bible gave those going through D. Day and their families comfort, and the prophecy of Daniel 2 indicates the failure of attempts to join the toes together.

In a study of the writings of Ellen White, it must be remembered that she did not say or write everything that it is claimed that she said or wrote. The following is a listing of a few statements that cannot be proven to have been said or written by her. https://ellenwhite.org/faq/151

Daniel was focused on the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom, whether it was due to the exile ending in a second exodus lead by the Messiah, or a lackluster return to the land and the reestablishment of the kingdom (with Zerubbabel). When Zerubbable did not end up carrying on the Davidic Kingdom, it appeared that the prophecies failed. Daniel appears to have gotten placed on the shelf. The book of Daniel has the section telling about Daniel, and the section where Daniel talks in the first person. The traditional view is that Daniel was written by Daniel himself. the popular alternative view is that Daniel was written by someone who was living under the Antiochus persecution. In the last century Fundamentalists, who would normally hold with the traditional view has changed over to supporting the Antiochus view and wants Daniel 8:14 to be dealing with the Antiochus situation. Now neither 2300 days nor 1550 days fit the Antiochus situation. Non-Fundamentalist scholars are open about this not fitting, I read in one commentary that it does not need to fit since it was just wishful thinking. Fundamentalists commentaries tend to ignore that neither number fits. The 1150 comes from making the 2300 evenings-mornings into the morning and evening sacrifices and since there are two sacrifices thus dividing 2300 by 2 and coming to 1150 days. A difficulty is that the term for the morning and evening sacrifices are "morning and evening" not "evenings-mornings". A couple of commentaries said that this was due to either Daniel or a scribe suffering from dyslexia, switching the words mornings and evenings and forgetting the word "and" between them. Arguments against Daniel being the author include that some of the descriptions of Babylon are not correct and if Daniel was the author then he would have gotten this information correct. However, a new set of arguments have come up (It's not just when Belshazzar’s third year was that are affected by deeper study) is that while it has some information wrong, there are other parts of Babylon's history that the book has amazingly correct, things that would have been long since forgotten by the time of Antiochus. So there is a growing trend among scholars for a new understanding of Daniel. This new approach says that there was indeed a Daniel who served in Babylon and the early Medio-Persia. Daniel would have had students. After Daniel died, and before Zerubbabel failed to restart the David Monarchy, that one or more of Daniel's students, took Daniel's history and wrote the first part, then used the actual writings by their teacher for the second part. This would explain both why the book of Daniel is not quite as perfect as if it flowed from Daniel's pen, but perfectly fits the historical situation of Daniel's interest in the reestablishment of the David Monarchy, the things incorrect about Babylon, yet the correct information about Babylon that were long burried in the archaeological layers by the time of Antiochus Now, there are passages that are clearly scribal notes which are arugued if they got in before or during the Antiochus situation. I hope this helps: KH PS What do you mean in your question You have something on your mind that is not coming across in what I'm reading from you. I have no idea what it is. It seems confusing that you somehow connect the book of Daniel to Jesus participating in false relifious celebration. I'm trying to piece together if maybe you are calling Hanukkah a false religious celebration? Nothing I'm trying seems to make any sense. Please help me out, then I can try to answer your question.

For those who may have GA and are not aware of the two injections that are authorized to treat it in the u.s., the following are the two allowed injections: 1) syfovre (pegcetacoplan): This is the first authorized injection, which became available in 2023. 2) izervay (avacincaptad pegol). This is the injection that I receive. it was approved in 2024. It is believed to achieve a better 12-month reduction in the GA than is achieved by Syfovre. NOTE: My approach to medical care is to be an informed person. If a physician is going to inject medication into my eyes, on a regular basis, I am going to be well informed as to the treatment plan.

It's good to get a pat on the back. Makes it easier not to find it necessary to see my money go up in smoke. God is Love! Jesus saves!

Quote: By God's grace and some in spite of our mistakes God is Love! Jesus saves!

Bonnie, Congratulations and God bless you for the great job you did raising wonderful straight-laced Christian children. If they are as you say, whatever you did worked; whether I/we agree with your methodology or not.

By God's grace and some in spite of our mistakes

Quote: 12 grandchildren out of twelve have escaped the problem of substance use so I guess I will stick with my brand of BS Praise the Lord. And I would suggest since it is by God's grace, it is not BS. Unless of course, it is in spite of the BS. Have a . God is Love! Jesus saves!

Quote: Many that have this prefer marijuana if they can get it. I'll give you one example why. My sister became a quadriplegic in 1975. To keep her spasms from throwing her out of her wheelchair, she was taking so much valium that she was a zombie. A doctor way back then told her that if she smoked good weed, it would control her spasms without turning her into a vegetable. She tried it and pretty much immediately quit taking the "equally effective" valium. Here in Colorado, legal weed has made little if any difference in the environment, except that overdoses from illegal opiate use is way down. Personally, I would rather my kids not drink or smoke pot. But they are all adults; and if they are intent upon getting a buzz, I would be more comfortable with them get stoned than get drunk. Drunk people do way more stupid things and are way more prone to violence than stoned people. As far as damaging the brain, you can find much more legitimate research on brain damage from chronic alcohol abuse than chronic cannabis abuse. Chronic abuse of anything, even if it's good for you in moderate amounts, will damage your brain and many other organs. The fact that they suspect brain damage in chronic long-term stoners isn't really rocket science.

Tom beat me to it. I grew up in a secular family, and the way my dad dealt with underage sex and drinking... he sat me down, and first said that I am an adult now, and that he respects my decisions either way. Then he laid out all of the benefits of underage sex and drinking, and all of the real detriments, which were not overblown to "you'll be homeless, alcoholic, and dead". He even thrown in a story about how during his time in Soviet Sports school he had to say no to a threesome with two French exchange student girls who liked him, because he thought that it would probably left him preoccupied with sex rather than his goals. Coming from a secular family, I did "better" than most of the Christian kids today. I didn't drink, because I wanted to succeed in sports, and it sort of became a lifestyle that carried over. And I didn't have sex till I got married, because I looked at teen sex and dating as something that could be problematic for my academic success in terms of time I'd have to put into it to just get sex. I attribute it to honesty and candor of my father who didn't make teen fornication and alcohol to be something that's "forbidden", but rather that's something less undesirable in lifestyle that I was aspiring to... which had better of both, and it made sense. His actual words were not forbidding, but saying... "if you postpone these things, and develop yourself... then you'll have better quality women, and expensive alcohol". But it grew into a lifestyle, once you turn it into a discipline. As Tom said, if my dad lied to me, I would probably have sex much earlier and more frequently prior to marriage, and be drinking without any second thought, because I would have the idea that my parents were trying to hide something from me... something for me to find out and experience simply out of curiosity. I'm not saying that I'm somehow "better" because I don't. I merely point out that it's a personal and positive goal, rather than a negative avoidance. Honesty + personal goals is what worked for me... not my parents drilling me by any means necessary. So, the question you should ask yourself... why would a person decide to smoke pot, in spite of Christian parents warning not to? I think the answer has more to do with personal goals and decisions, and less with drilling into them that they will upset God and their parents if they don't. Especially if they, as Tom said, would pick up on BS that says that small doses will cause lasting harm... and they'd see no evidence of it interacting with their friends who do partake of these substances, and still manage to do well in school and etc.

Bonnie said: Quote: I do not believe marijuana is as harmless as some of you seem to imply or say "we really don't know" You were not specific enough for me to be certain. But, I think that you have not understood what has been said to you. I did not deal with the harmfulness of MJ, which in my opinion includes issues that you did not mention. I focused on other aspects of your posts which, in my opinion failed to accurately present what actually is.

Quote: Maybe you need science to tell you that you would not want your child smoking pot. Maybe I am narrow minded and don't put enough faith in research. But not my child and not my house. Bonnie, it looks to me like you are confused not only of the clinical research that is going on in England and other countries, but what is being learned and what can be expected. Let me help you: The research being conducted in other countries is not expected to tell me, or anyone else, whether or not a child should be smoking pot at home.

Quote: The proper way to conduct such research is not in the present subculture, but in a controlled environment where you study two groups of average people, one gets to smoke pot for a year and the other one doesn't. You then compare their success, habits and etc. I was speaking specifically about the treatment of medical conditions. The above is not the manner in which research is conducted related to medical conditions.

Quote: Many have called for the legalization of marijuana to treat conditions including pain and nausea caused by HIV/AIDS, cancer, and other conditions, but clinical evidence has not shown that the therapeutic benefits of the marijuana plant outweigh its health risks. To be considered a legitimate medicine by the FDA, a substance must have well-defined and measurable ingredients that are consistent from one unit (such as a pill or injection) to the next. As the marijuana plant contains hundreds of chemical compounds that may have different effects and that vary from plant to plant, and because the plant is typically ingested via smoking, its use as a medicine is difficult to evaluate. The above is being called into question today. Yes, it is difficult to evaluate, and especially in the United States. Scientific research is being conducted in Europe that cannot easily be done in the U.S. due to the legal situation. There is clear evidence, unfinished, that MJ may (?) be a valid medical treatment for some conditions. The growth of the legal MJ industry is demonstrating that growers can produce MJ plants with defined characteristics, to include varied levels of THC. So, standardization can be further developed. As to the other compounds present in the plants, research can factor those in and out. More research is clearly needed. Science in not yet finished. The evidence is not yet in--to include long-term effects, as has been mentioned.

I can see a lot of our young people using this list to argue to allow them to use pot. Thankfully those we entrusted our sons to at the academy did not treat the use of pot in this manner You can get as extreme as you like to prove or suggest pot is not harmful. If my child needed medical care and I were giving a choice of a Dr that regularly smoked the harmless pot,just finished drinking a beer, or smoked a cigarette the choice would not be difficult Who would I choose as someone providing transportation for my child,the driver that had just smoked pot,just finished drinking a beer, or one that had just smoked a regular cigarette?

Aren't you glad that I saved that one for you to post? There are also a couple of other articles that dispute the findings. I have never tried it and don't have any desire to do so. Regardless of what your educated opinion may be,it isn't even reasonable to believe that "pot" does not have an effect on the human body. I have known a few that are very vocal about their regular recreational use. One thing that is very common among those that do is a lack of motivation as opposed to those that don't use it. Certainly seems to make them mellow. So mellow that in day to day living and achievements their top speed does not exceed neutral. Of course there are those it affects differently just as smoking does. MY BIL smoked two to three packs a day,my husband is the one with COPD. My BIL died at 79 of other causes unrelated to smoking. My second cousin was a regular "pot smoker" for years. His demeanor during that time was almost a mirror of what the first article describes.His brother,11 months older never touched it and was a startling contrast.The older brother was only average in his achievements,but the contrast was obvious if you weren't blind