Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Steve, you need a lot of help, but the primary help you need here is to finally learn what "on-topic" and "off-topic" are since you clearly don't grok those concepts.Then don't jump into my posts with another lol. It was not about you but a disagreement I was having with another person. I know my own arguements with others and what is being said and how to respond to this. I don't need your help lol.
I get the general gist of your off-topic discussion on mind/body and I don't care. You picked the wrong thread and sub-forum. Go pick a better one where it is on topic and leave us alone.That just makes it worse lol. You don't know the context in which I was discussing this and why I was responding the way I did.
I was the other way around. The Dark Ages and Hellinistic thought was being used to negate that Christianity has its own knowledge about the mind and body divide.
The original point was about how religious belief and Christianity inparticular does not need a lesson in the idea of mind and body. That its a human inclination to believe such things and that Christianity as far as Christians are concern hold the truth to the mind and body divide.
So please if you are going to jump in then know the context. Otherwise you are going to make these false representations of what was going on.
We could discuss the origin of life (not silly things like metaphysics), but someone keeps posting off topic material.By the way you should care about philsophy because the thread is about philosophy lol. You can't engage properly in the thread without philsophy. It is the very debate as to the belief in whether life was formed on its own.
How could science even prove that life began on its own. You would have to step into metaphysics.
I think the expression "heaven on earth" can be pretty straight forward - like being about feeling like you're in a paradise or utopia in your everyday life. There is also the expression "hell on earth".
A few years ago I was talking to a liberal Anglican pastor and she was saying that heaven and hell can be on earth (I assume she was talking about states of mind).
In other words your argument is from silence. Got it.It is said by God about Abraham, that Isaac was blessed "Because" that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws..
God also said of Abraham, "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and "they shall keep the way of the LORD", to do justice and judgment"; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
Consider the incredible hubris and foolishness of a man who would imply in his teaching, that the only Laws, Statutes and Commandments of God given to Abraham, were those that God had recorded at the time. That somehow, the only Law, Commandment and Statute and Judgment that existed before Moses, was the command to cut the loose skin of the mans penis, which is the ONLY Law recorded, that was given to Abraham, that was to apply to future generations.
Such a philosophy is absurd, but according to your post, if I am "Sola Scripture", then that is the standard you would require of me. Do you really believe that we are privy to EVERY Conversation God had with Noah, when HE walked with him? Or EVERY detail of the conversations God had with Abraham when God defined for Abraham, "The Way of the Lord", His Judgments, Statutes, Commandments and Laws? Clearly God showed him His commandments, judgments and Statutes, even though God didn't Inspire it to be written down until the Exodus.
We know adultery is a Commandment of God, because God says so in Ex. 20. We also know that Abimelech knew that God commanded not to commit adultery, and also knew the wages of this sin is death. Clearly God showed him His commandment, even though God didn't Inspire it to be written down until the Exodus.
Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals. But we are not privy to the contents of all the discussions that took place when Noah walked with God, in fact, we are not privy to any of those discussion. Are we to believe God didn't speak to Noah, except the words recording in Scripture? The mindset that there was no Judgment of God concerning what animals were for food, and what animals were not, because God's Judgments concerning them were not written down until the Exodus is foolishness, in my view. Clearly Noah and God had discussed His Judgments, even though God chose not to include you in the conversation.
Noah's sons knew Gods Commandment concerning the wickedness of looking on the nakedness of their father. One son refused to honor God in this known commandment, and was punished, which the other two sons honored God in His Commandment. Clearly God showed them His commandments, even though God didn't include us in the conversation.
The philosophy that the Commandment didn't exist, or was not obeyed before God inspired Moses to write it down is a complete rejection of what is actually written, and frankly absurd. Why would a person even make such a declaration?
Paul said;
Rom. 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
That would also include Abraham, Yes? And Sodom as well. Or is it your contention that God kills men for disobeying His Commandments HE never gave to them?
Noah was a "preacher of Righteousness", accord to what is written in the Holy Scriptures, doesn't that mean that God revealed His Righteousness unto Noah? Shall I then reject Paul's teaching, because God didn't include you in the discussion where God was revealing His Righteousness to Noah?
I am "Sola Scripture". It is "Because" of scripture, that I believe God gave Noah and Abraham His instruction in Righteousness, Judgments, Commandments, Statutes and Laws. I have no reason or certainly authority to exclude a commandment of God, just because a religious voice in the Garden placed me in, who "Professes to know God", teaches to exclude it.
Your argument that God's instruction in Righteousness HE gave to Abraham, was different that God's instruction in Righteousness HE gave to Abraham's Children, has no Scriptural Support. But the religious tradition to promote such foolishness, has existed in this world for a long time before God placed me here.
So the argument that God Set apart and Sanctified and made Holy, the 7th days of the Week, and according to the Jesus "of the Bible", did so "FOR MAN", but didn't give it to man until the Exodus, because it wasn't written down until Exodus, has no more scriptural support than an argument that God didn't give Cain and Abel His Commandment "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart", or "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" because it wasn't written down until the Exodus.
What was right and wrong for Noah and Abraham, was also right and wrong, for Noah's and Abraham's Children, in my view. And this because of Paul's teaching, "For there is no respect of persons with God".
To preach that God's definition of righteousness is different for one man than another, might be popular in the religions of this world, but is not representative of the teaching of the God "of the Bible", according to my understanding of Scriptures.
Trump was in Pennsylvania last weekend (?), I think you are overstating the benefit.Likewise, as I mentioned before, there's practical security reasons for being able to host larger government social functions on WH property as opposed trying to secure public venues like hotels, etc...
Yes, but is this an argument against preservation? If people have thought it was bad idea then and now, perhaps it is a bad idea?And the motion picture industry paying for renovations because "landing a screening at the White House family theater" was a valuable marketing tool is the sort of the "private influence" people are voicing concerns about now, correct?
And the cost of those projects weren't even made public.
And it seems as if there were some similar criticisms tossed around with prior renovations going back to Jefferson.
Per TheHill:
The East Wing’s razing was met with criticism both by preservationists and by more than half of the American public. In death, the East Wing has come full circle, as it received criticism at the time of its birth during early 1800s.
President Thomas Jefferson, who served two terms 1801-09, first ordered the installation of colonnades on both the eastern and western sides of the White House, according to the White House Historical Association
Newspaper editorials slammed the additions, while the opposing Federalist Party suggested that the colonnades reflected “aristocratic tendencies” from Jefferson, the WHHA described.
But the colonnades remained until 1866 and were then replaced in 1902, under President Theodore Roosevelt’s overhaul of the White House, to allow for a main entrance for social events
Under FDR's 1942 renovations, controversy stemmed from it being completed with World War II unfolding in the background. Republicans called the construction wasteful and accused FDR of using the White House makeover to improve his image.
This all sounds like very familiar... like history repeating itself just a tad.
Like most innocent people, Trump is not just requesting that, but threatening to sanction officials of the court that is not even investigating him.In other completely normal news, apparently the Trump administration is doing what every single other administration has done and is requesting immunity for war crimes from the International Criminal Court.
As I read through this thread, I was struck by how much of the discussion centers on moralism—either as a means to salvation or as something that somehow affects salvation. One side argues that obedience to the Ten Commandments is not required for salvation; the other insists that it is. One side says the Sabbath is uniquely Jewish; the other says it was made for humanity and predates the Jews. Yet, in different ways, both sides seem focused on moral observance.The writings of 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. In other words, the vast majority of Christians are doomed for worshipping our Lord on Sunday instead of Saturday.
Here are her writings:
Reception of Mark of the Beast Future—The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish church. Those who, understanding the claims of the fourth commandment, choose to observe the false sabbath in the place of the true, are thereby paying homage to that power by which alone it is commanded. The mark of the beast is the papal sabbath, which has been accepted by the world in the place of the day of God’s appointment. Ev 234.1
No one has yet received the mark of the beast. The testing time has not yet come. There are true Christians in every church, not excepting the Roman Catholic communion. None are condemned until they have had the light and have seen the obligation of the fourth commandment. But when the decree shall go forth enforcing the counterfeit sabbath, and the loud cry of the third angel shall warn men against the worship of the beast and his image, the line will be clearly drawn between the false and the true. Then those who still continue in transgression will receive the mark of the beast. Ev 234.2
With rapid steps we are approaching this period. When Protestant churches shall unite with the secular power to sustain a false religion, for opposing which their ancestors endured the fiercest persecution, then will the papal sabbath be enforced by the combined authority of church and state. There will be a national apostasy, which will end only in national ruin.—Manuscript 51, 1899. Ev 235.1
When Seal of God Is Refused—If the light of truth has been presented to you, revealing the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and showing that there is no foundation in the Word of God for Sunday observance, and yet you still cling to the false sabbath, refusing to keep holy the Sabbath which God calls “My holy day,” you receive the mark of the beast. When does this take place? When you obey the decree that commands you to cease from labor on Sunday and worship God, while you know that there is not a word in the Bible showing Sunday to be other than a common working day, you consent to receive the mark of the beast, and refuse the seal of God.—The Review and Herald, July 13, 1897. Ev 235.2
As a Result of Disregard of Light—God has given men the Sabbath as a sign between Him and them, as a test of their loyalty. Those who, after the light regarding God’s law comes to them, continue to disobey and exalt human laws above the law of God in the great crisis before us will receive the mark of the beast.—Letter 98, 1900. Ev 235.3
Caution in Presenting the Sunday Question—[We are] not to provoke those who have accepted this spurious sabbath, an institution of the Papacy in the place of God’s holy Sabbath. Their not having the Bible arguments in their favor makes them all the more angry and determined to supply the place of arguments that are wanting in the Word of God by the power of their might. The force of persecution follows the steps of the dragon. Therefore great care should be exercised to give no provocation.—Letter 55, 1886. Ev 235.4
Let the Truth Do the Cutting—Satan’s efforts against the advocates of the truth will wax more bitter and determined to the very close of time. As in Christ’s day the chief priests and rulers stirred up the people against Him, so today the religious leaders will excite bitterness and prejudice against the truth for this time. The people will be led to acts of violence and opposition which they would never have thought of had they not been imbued with the animosity of professed Christians against the truth. Ev 236.1
And what course shall the advocates of truth pursue? They have the unchangeable, eternal Word of God, and they should reveal the fact that they have the truth as it is in Jesus. Their words must not be rugged and sharp. In their presentation of truth they must manifest the love and meekness and gentleness of Christ. Let the truth do the cutting; the Word of God is as a sharp, two-edged sword, and will cut its way to the heart. Those who know that they have the truth should not, by the use of harsh and severe expressions, give Satan one chance to misinterpret their spirit.—The Review and Herald, October 14, 1902. Ev 236.2
A Call to Enlighten the Masses—I have been shown that Satan is stealing a march upon us. The law of God, through the agency of Satan, is to be made void. In our land of boasted freedom, religious liberty will come to an end. The contest will be decided over the Sabbath question, which will agitate the whole world. Ev 236.3
Our time for work is limited, and God calls us as ministers and people to be minutemen. Teachers as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves must come to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty. There are many who do not understand the prophecies relating to these days, and they must be enlightened.—Letter 1, 1875. Ev 237.1
![]()
Evangelism
Presenting God’s last warning message to a doomed world is the “highest, greatest work” ever given to human beings. This comprehensive handbook on ev…egwwritings.org
Is Ellen White correct? Are those that worship our Lord on Sunday doomed to receive the mark of the beast?
He had no criminal history, never even a traffic ticket and especially never any Acts like this, sooo... You listed elements of his mental health crisis!...stalking and forcing himself into someone's home. ...