AstralHammer said:

@CoreyD
@Delvianna
If I banned magic from my list of online games to play, that certainly would narrow the games I am interested in. That goes without mentioning whether technology or mathematics is a form a magic in these games, because the list does carry science in there that could be construed as magic. Especially with the space games.

Here is my list updated without magic.

War of Rights
Star Citizen
Fallout 76
Myth of Empires
Avorion

Click to expand...

I'm not going to take a look at the list, because I might be critical, and then your list might be blank.
So, I'll let you decide... unless you really would like me to evaluate it from the scriptural perspective.

Oompa Loompa said:

I believe the plan that has been tossed around was to give people vouchers directly so they can buy whatever health insurance they want. Better than throwing more money at insurance companies so they can raise rates and profit margins.

Click to expand...

Who are the vouchers payable to?

Studyman said:

Here is your exact quote for your thread"



When I placed your thread in my Microsoft Bing search bar, ""Ellen White on the mark of the beast for those that worship on Sunday"

Here is the AI generated response from Microsoft Bing

Ellen White, a prophet of the Seventh Day Adventist church, teaches that those who worship on Sunday will receive the mark of the beast and will reject the seal of God. She asserts that the vast majority of Christians are doomed for worshipping our Lord on Sunday instead of Saturday.

Word for word. Since the article you posted doesn't teach that "Ellen White, a prophet of the Seventh Day Adventist church, teach that those who worship on Sunday will receive the mark of the beast and will reject the seal of God", I tried to find out where this teaching comes from.

Click to expand...

When you do a search like that on Bing the AI search is called a copilot search. Here it is what I get using the same search criteria.


Search bar: Ellen White on the mark of the beast for those that worship on Sunday

• ALL
• SEARCH
• IMAGES
• VIDEOS
• MAPS
• COPILOT
• NEWS
• SHOPPING
• FLIGHTS
• TRAVEL
• SEARCH TOOLS

1. 
   
   
   Like
   Dislike
   Ellen White's teachings on the mark of the beast emphasize that those who worship on Sunday will receive the mark of the beast and will reject the seal of God. This perspective is rooted in her belief that the observance of Sunday by Protestants is an homage to the authority of the Catholic Church, which she equates with the worship of the beast. White's writings indicate that the enforcement of Sunday observance by law would be an enforcement of the worship of the beast and his image, leading to a national apostasy and ultimately national ruin.
   
   It does not match your claim. Not surprised at all. You don’t see it or don’t want to see it do you.
   
   

Studyman said:

I placed your thread ""Ellen White on the mark of the beast for those that worship on Sunday" into the search bar of my Microsoft Bing search engine, and as you can see, the AI generated response was word for word what you posted. I can not find this teaching anywhere else, certainly not in the "Link" you provided while you were searching the Web for information on Ellen White. The only source I could find to support your teaching, was from you and a word for word AI response I received when I searched your thread.

If you didn't search your own thread, like I did, when you were searching the internet to find information on EGW, and it was simply an astonishing and unbelievable coincidence that your statement, and the AI generated response I got, were word for word, and both wrong according to the very Link you provided, I am sorry. And I apologize for assuming that you googled your own thread when you were on the internet searching for information regarding your own thread.

Click to expand...

I did not google my own thread. In fact, I googled “Ellen White on Sunday Worship” and brought up the link that I posted in my op. I posted her own words for discussion because she accuses the pope of changing the sabbath day to Sunday, hence my comment.

Studyman said:

Your judgment of "maliciously truncated" your opening post is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I was simply correcting an error you were making concerning EGW's teaching.

Click to expand...

It is not my opinion. By truncating who was making the comments, Ellen White, you made it seem like I accused the SDA church of making the comments. That changes the context of my discussion to something that was not part of the discussion.

Studyman said:

Neither Ellen White, nor the SDA church, nor does any of this world's religious sects, teach that men "who worship on Sunday will receive the mark of the beast and will reject the seal of God".

Click to expand...

Ellen White does according to her own writings. I did not make up her writing but merely copied them into my OP. You need to address what SHE said not what I said.

Studyman said:

The issue isn't about what days to worship God. Your sermon, and consequently the AI response I got when googling your thread, makes it about what day to worship God, but White, and the SDA do not. It's about the re-writing of God's commandments, specifically the 4th of the 10 Commandments Given by God in Ex. 20.

Click to expand...

I did not do a sermon. I never claimed that I did a sermon. Your characterization is out of line and not supported by my post.

Studyman said:

This is true according to writings of White, and the RCC who took it upon themselves to re-write the Commandment.

"The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.
—The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4."

Again, since you replied to my post, I am obligated to point out the truth that the controversy was never about "what Day to Worship God". It was about the re-writing of a Commandment of God.

Click to expand...

So argue that from Ellen White’s words. That is what I put up for discussion. My answer would have been simple. I’m not Catholic. I worship on Sunday because the early church did and the law is not binding in the new covenant.

Studyman said:

The difference between us, is that I corrected my mistake,

Click to expand...

How pompous of you. I posted the summary post because you continued accusing me of using AI because of your own assumption. Never did you even state that you made a mistake.

Studyman said:

And if I was wrong to assume that when you were on the Internet, searching about EGW, that you didn't search your own thread, and copied and pasted the response I got, then I am sorry.

Click to expand...

Why didn’t you just ask me instead of defaulting to accusations? You accused me in five different posts even after I told you that I had not used AI. I would have gladly answered you.

Studyman said:

I was hoping to discuss your statement that EGW taught "that men who worship on Sunday will receive the mark of the beast and will reject the seal of God", which is untrue.

Click to expand...

These are Ellen White’s words not mine. Open the link and you can see her words.

Studyman said:

I apologize if I was wrong in my assumption concerning the source of your teaching.

Click to expand...

I am of Christ so forgiving comes naturally i
for me, however, you also need to understand what you did and I still don’t see it in your post.

Men should love their wives and wives should respect their husbands.

Considering how many of Satan's resources are applied to attack and subvert men, we can assume how important it is to resist.

jonojim1337 said:

385 reactions · 41 shares | Flat Earth Bulgaria on Reels

www.facebook.com

Hilarious.

Click to expand...

Why?

ChubbyCherub said:

Well, that is a failing in our school system, I guess.

Click to expand...

I'm tempted to emulate US writing conventions, circa 1860, in reply, but since I'm not literally taking "pen in hand," perhaps it's best to refrain. Or we could peruse the writings of the deist Thomas Paine, or the naturalist William Bartram or Reverend Johnathan Edwards to get a feel for 18th Century English. I noticed that when our children studied Shakespeare, they and their friends had an excellent grasp of the Bard's writings, and that likely came from familiarity with the KJV.

My point? Whether it's the focus of schools to teach meanings of words and idioms of times past depends on the class. An elementary school teaching reading and writing not so much; the same for introductory history. Once you get beyond that and begin to consult primary sources, then a class would be very much amiss not to address changes in the meaning of words.

All of this is neither here nor there, to borrow from 19th Century US vernacular. This topic is basically a KJV only discussion from the POV of those who see no reason for continued use. Whatever. The stated point of modern translations is the same as those of times past: To make God's Word more accessible. Having grown up with the KJV, I don't find it makes it inaccessible, and meaning by contest is enough to gain understanding of the rather poetic "fetched a compass." That said, for personal use I prefer the NASB, 1995 version. But if someone asked me my opinion of The Message bible vs the KJV, I'd direct them to the KJV. The biggest issue is accuracy of the translation, and the more you get into paraphrase, the more you get into the realm of commentary.

I will mention that I saw the Good News for Modern Man and the first The Living Bible translations, and having scripture in the language of the time doesn't seem to have had much impact on the continued decay of Western society. It's good to be able to more easily understand God's Word, but it doesn't automatically follow that the reader will come under conviction.

This is state sponsored terrorism.

Michie said:

I see several. It depends on what Mass you attends but there are some at every Mass I have attended. You’ll see it during Adoration too.

Click to expand...

Do you wear one? Will you?

It has been my experience that if a person desires true fellowship in order to find answers to their questions and pose their own questions it should be in mutual love and respect for one another. Being nasty and combative is not being a Christian. Unity in the faith is what the goal of the church is according to Paul. It’s very obvious that we have a long way to go to achieve that. Who is it that causes division, infighting and insults ? I don’t want to participate in that and it seems like you don’t either.

Delvianna said:

And its this reason that they said Jesus had a demon. They were so used to magic and power because it was abundant in pagan cultures. So any power shown by God to them was demonic. But always remember though that power in itself isn't wrong, it just depends on where it comes from. God's power always glorifies the Father. Satans always glorifies the self.

Click to expand...

They did say Jesus got his power from the ruler of the demons, so they did understand that magical powers were from spirits. That's interested, isn't it.
It shows that people were aware of the angelic beings, and deliberately involved themselves with them, so that they could have personal gain.

chevyontheriver said:

I always see a few. Not many but always some.

Click to expand...

Do you think this will become a thing again?

Hilarious.

AstralHammer said:

I do find it difficult finding video games to play these days as opposed to before when I far away from God or was less mature in the relationship I have with Him.

Click to expand...

I can't agree with you more.
The way I see it, is this is Satan's world, and so, it is expected that it would be harder and harder to find content that is appropriate for people seeking to please God.
Satan doesn't want anyone to please God!

Do you hear families complaining about not finding appropriate content for them to watch with their children?
Do you notice what they are putting in "Children's movies"?
I watched Sonic the Hedgehog, and tried to pass off the magic as alien ability, or technology (even though I considered super aliens a product of Satan's design). I felt bad after, and decided I would not watch any more.
I didn't even realize there were a few inappropriate words and expressions in the movie.

What Satan offers is appealing and really excites the flesh, so it can be hard to resist, but I realize that it calls for a determined effort to "Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength".
This is because of the fallen flesh Romans 7:15-20, and the treacherous heart Jeremiah 17:9.
I realize it can be done, because I dumped all the music, and games I enjoyed after learning how God feels about the things I enjoyed listening to, and playing.

Afterward, I felt really good, and I immersed myself in things that were "true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent or praiseworthy" Philippians 4:8, knowing that I had God's approval and blessing... which is more important than "to enjoy the fleeting pleasures [[or enjoyment] of sin". Hebrews 11:25

Besides, there are alternatives. There are really creative adventure and puzzle games that inspired me to make games, and I have many games planned, which I have decided to make a start, before I get totally left behind.
I liked a puzzle game that really inspired me... which had great graphics, and a boy that has to use a grappling hook to get to the end of the level, and it calls for really using your brain.... which is why I took a liking to puzzle adventure games.
It's not a resent game, so I can't find it, but I'll keep looking.

Actually, I liked these games from the old school point and click games, where you needed to use your head to get through the game.
These, are better than senselessly shooting at hoards of enemies, and much of the meaningless games I see being made.
So, I hope I can inspire some of you guys to get into making video games.

timothyu said:

We all get resurrected but only those who do the Will of the Father, like Jesus, will find a place in the Kingdom. Little children already trust in their parent, as must we

Click to expand...

Nope Jesus did not have to believe in Himself to get into the Kingdom (He is The King). And people only get into the Kingdom by belief in Jesus.

Regarding games, what if it is all fiction?

concretecamper said:

The ONLY WAY people can become CHRISTIAN is through the Sacrament of Baptism.

Click to expand...

I'll ask you the same question still not answered:

St. Paul wrote

If the ONLY WAY is through Baptism - why did St. Paul not mention Baptism?

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

It is hard to overlook the many doctrinal mis-steps of a few denominations. I will never consider joining any of them. So that is why I am doing my research ahead of time. Even if it has "Baptist" in its name, that doesn't mean it is a good church.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean. I kept asking God to guide me to a good Church and He eventually did.

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

3) the lack of condemnation for those who are in Christ.

Click to expand...

I like what you said, but I'm not sure of what you mean here. Thanks!

Wow!

I wonder if we'll see the gold to silver ratio go back to 15:1.

CLEEB said:

This type of behavior seems common on this forum. Some people see everything as an attack and some refuse to admit they are wrong even when presented with the evidence. This is what happens when you have so many people who have different beliefs. No one is going to be able to convince the other of anything and it quickly degenerates into confusion. This is sad and unfortunate but is also the reality. When I am faced with that brand of person I ignore them. Quoting scripture is irrelevant because everyone has their own private interpretation. There can be no healthy discussion under such circumstances.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your opinion, and truly, if men just ignore everyone who sees Scriptures differently than them, truly there can be no healthy discussion. It seems "many" are more interested in justifying themselves and defending their adopted religious philosophy, than seeking the truth of God. This inevitably leads to tribal behavior and division, which explains the hundreds of religious sects "who call Jesus Lord, Lord" that exist in this world God placed me in.

A healthy discussion consists of men who are willing to ask and answer questions about God's Word honestly, even if the answer exposes a wickedness or deception within them, that we all have.

As for Scriptures, in my experience it isn't the interpretation that causes the deception, it's the motive for using the Scripture in the first place. Are we using selective scripture to justify a popular religious tradition, philosophy or doctrine of men, that considering more of God's Word would expose as NOT Wrought in God?

If a person is only interested in justify themselves, then truly, most of God's word would become irrelevant to them.

Your response is full of logical contradictions.

Mark Quayle said:

You take that for axiomatic, just as, I'm guessing, you would take that "the command implies the ability to obey". (—It does not).

Click to expand...

True, It does not; however, in that case it requires deception by God to make me believe that i am not already controlled by a fixation in time.

Mark Quayle said:

If your choices are decided by God, it does not imply that you do not really choose. In fact, I think it is more obvious, since God is First Cause, that your choices are only real if God "establishes" them. (See the WCF 3.1) That you are not the prime mover in your choices does not deny that you are the immediate cause in your choices.

Click to expand...

How can you not see that you are stating every side of the argument at once and completely refuting yourself?

How does it sound to you if I were to say that "if I flicked a light switch on, it does not imply that the electrical current did not really choose to turn the light on. I think it is more obvious, since I flicked the light switch, that the electrical current's choice to turn on the light is only real if I allowed it. That the electrical current is not the prime mover in its choice does not deny that the electrical current is the immediate cause of the light turning on."

The electrical current is indeed the cause, but did it make the choice to be the cause?

Mark Quayle said:

False as the day is long. You continue in your notion of man as prime mover in his deeds. You indeed do WILL to do what you do, and that, by what you deem more advantageous or desirous. You choose according to your inclinations.

Click to expand...

First you say it is false that man is the prime mover in his deeds, and then immediately afterwards you proclaim it as true in the next two sentences.

Mark Quayle said:

Let me try to point out something. God not only has the right and the ability to cause absolutely everything to happen just as it does. But any truth there is to our skewed views (and descriptions) of who chooses what and why the do so does not approach the level at which reality [itself] is caused to exist. Even if you are entirely right in the POV from which you try to describe how choice operates, you must admit that God caused it. That reality did not cause itself, nor did it exist before God showed up "on the scene". Nothing existed before God. He did not "show up".

Click to expand...

I am not denying that God caused our reality, but within that reality I believe that God has the ability to give us a choice that is not pre-determined. You claim that God does not have that ability, but through a bunch of word-salad try to explain away the contradictions your position creates.

Mark Quayle said:

That believers must and do actually choose Christ is not debated. That we do have real, valid, faith by which we are saved is also not debated. But the source of those things absolutely is at issue here.

Click to expand...

Actually, the source of choice is not so much the issue as is whether the choice is real. If God knows our choice before it is made, then it is not really a choice either by God or by us.

National Guard member killed in DC shooting laid to rest with honors​

Oompa Loompa said:

I stand corrected. The US is in Armed Conflict with drug cartels.

Click to expand...

Trump is for some reason. The US isn't.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

As a traditional conservative, I don't really understand what this "woke" thing is all about, whether people support it or oppose it.

For example, I find it difficult to understand certain liberals who, in the name of being "woke," appear to suppress free speech. Conversely, I also struggle to comprehend members of the anti-woke group who believe that having the First Amendment allows them to disregard proper etiquette and behave disrespectfully toward others.

Click to expand...

Allowing untramelled migration is also a branch off the woke tree. It has a lot of nasty branches, all stemming from a very *toxic* form of empathy. Other branches include supporting terrorists and even turning a blind eye towards welcoming them in, backing dictatorships, reverse racism, and rooting for the enemy out of "compassion"...

European politics seem to align with all of this, and may even be the source of it through media infiltration from the inside out. A covert tactic perhaps? Or maybe the result of intercommunication altogether in a more connected world, who all seem to speak our language. Maybe all these things.

Kathleen30 said:

Stronginhim wiliest it is true a thousand years can be referring to a long period of time 500 yrs a 1000 yrs 2000 yrs etc as with other passages where a thousand years is mentioned. In the context of 2nd Peter3;8 it seems to be an admonishment to believers to stand firm in their faith from scoffers who question the Lords return.

Click to expand...

I know.
I only quoted it because some people believe that it is a) literal and b) applies here. They would say, and have said, that one day is equal to 1,000 years, therefore God created the whole universe over a period of 6,000 years.
I quoted it, also, because I wondered if you believed that.

Kathleen30 said:

So can we use use the verse of 2nd Peter of a day meaning a long period of time like thousands or millions of years in the Genesis acount of 6 days of creation. Probably not because it has no bearing or reference to Genesis.

Click to expand...

If you are saying that the message of Genesis 1 is that God created - I agree.
But to some, it is vitally important to know whether he created in 6 days, 6,000 years or 6 undefined periods of time.

Kathleen30 said:

And there be others reasons why the 6 days of creation cannot be taken as millions or billions of years. Because God in his providence it seems has put 2 gigantic marble columns with their foundation set in cement by each day to stipulate what he meant .

Click to expand...

I've no idea what you mean by that, sorry.

Kathleen30 said:

It goes something like this ( day one And the evening and the morning day 2 And the evening and the morning day 3 and the evening and the morning day 4 and the evening and the morning day 5 and the evening and the morning day 6 and the evening and morning. ) the text is clearly talking about 24 hour days.

Click to expand...

No, it's not "clearly" talking about that at all.
Who's to say that the "evening" wasn't towards the end of a 5,000 year, or whatever, period and the "morning" wasn't the beginning of the next one? For example, end of the stone age, beginning of the bronze age? (Or whatever - I haven't researched it properly.)
Each of these "ages" could be one day, to God.

Kathleen30 said:

I do say perhaps scientist’s at least the ones who claim to be Christians should maybe question that there is something wrong with their dating methods and that the Bible says exactly what it says and that the science that is do confidently promoted is absolutely wrong and not the Bible

Click to expand...

I do say that perhaps some people need to learn about Biblical interpretation, different genres of writing etc and realise that the Bible and science are not in competition with one another.
The Bible doesn't have to explain things scientifically - that is not its purpose.

Kathleen30 said:

You did mention in your previous reply about why scientists are not trusted by the public .

Click to expand...

Did I? Where?

Kathleen30 said:

I’m just reading your thoughts on how slow was God in creating the world. Some funny : ) poor God no 7 days. You expect instantaneously.

Click to expand...

No, I do not expect "instantaneously"
I made the point that God could, easily, have created the universe in a moment - he has that power. Then I asked the, quite reasonable question, why did he take 6 days to do it?
Whatever you believe a "day" to represent, it had a morning and an evening - a beginning and an end. (Except in Genesis it's the other way around.)
Why? Did God need to go to bed in between? Why take 6 periods of time to create something that he could have done in an instant? Why did God, and the author of Genesis, need to present the creation of the universe in 6 definite periods of time?
IS God limited that he could only do one thing at a time -"animals, you'll have to wait for day 6, I'm dealing with oak trees at the moment."? Surely not.