A question for the non sabatarians(spelling?)

[Byfaithalone1]

We are made in God's image - no emulation necessary. The task at hand is getting to know more about who we are.

Can you help me understand the difference between what you've written above, and the following statement that I previously posted in this thread?

This may be a valid concern if the goal is to be like Jesus Christ. Certainly, that seems to be the objective of SDA fundamental belief #16. However, I don't believe my objective is "to be like the Most High." The more I understand who God is, the more I realize that I am not the Most High. I am interested in knowing more of God, not in being Him.
​

BFA

 

[sentipente]

Can you help me understand the difference between what you've written above, and the following statement that I previously posted in this thread?

This may be a valid concern if the goal is to be like Jesus Christ. Certainly, that seems to be the objective of SDA fundamental belief #16. However, I don't believe my objective is "to be like the Most High." The more I understand who God is, the more I realize that I am not the Most High. I am interested in knowing more of God, not in being Him.
​

BFA

The difference is as obvious as the nose on my face. Your statement does not include her statement about getting to know ourselves better. Stop playing these games.

 

[sentipente]

Fare thee well, BFA.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The difference is as obvious as the nose on my face. Your statement does not include her statement about getting to know ourselves better. Stop playing these games.

What do you suppose I meant by the following?

The more I understand who God is, the more I realize that I am not the Most High.
​

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Fare thee well, BFA.

It's been fun, Senti. God bless!

BFA

 

[sentipente]

What do you suppose I meant by the following?

The more I understand who God is, the more I realize that I am not the Most High.
​

BFA

Keep trying.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Keep trying.

I'm confused. Are we dialoguing or not? If you'd prefer not to engage in dialogue with me, I am happy to respect that. However, please be clear about your intentions so that I don't go against your preference. If you'd like to resume dialogue, feel free to respond to my post that was addressed to you (i.e. post #116).

Either way, I am happy to respect your wishes. I just need to understand what those wishes are. I'm picking up mixed signals.

BFA

 

[sentipente]

BFA, it is difficult to make sense of someone who asks how one knows that the Source is the Creator then admits that he sees no difference between Source and Creator. If is difficult to discuss with someone who believes that to quote a source means one must think the source is authoritative.

 

[sentipente]

BFA, it is difficult to make sense of someone who asks how one knows that the Source is the Creator then admits that he sees no difference between Source and Creator. If is difficult to discuss with someone who believes that to quote a source means one must think the source is authoritative.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BFA, it is difficult to make sense of someone who asks how one knows that the Source is the Creator then admits that he sees no difference between Source and Creator. If is difficult to discuss with someone who believes that to quote a source means one must think the source is authoritative.

Because I truly want to honor your wishes, I will ask again for a clear declaration from you as to whether you would like to continue dialogue in this or in other threads. If you do want such dialogue, please address post #116. If you don't, please make it clear that you want no further dialogue so that I have no ongoing confusion regarding your wishes.

Thanks,
BFA

 

[sentipente]

Because I truly want to honor your wishes, I will ask again for a clear declaration from you as to whether you would like to continue dialogue in this or in other threads. If you do want such dialogue, please address post #116. If you don't, please make it clear that you want no further dialogue so that I have no ongoing confusion regarding your wishes.

Thanks,
BFA

Now, that's a hoot. I can't respond to confusion. That's what my last post said.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Now, that's a hoot. I can't respond to confusion. That's what my last post said.

In the absence of a clear answer to my question and out of respect for your posts #118 and #123, I will assume that you do not wish to maintain dialogue with me. If you would ever like to re-open the discussion, please be clear when doing so that you are ready to return to dialogue. At that time, I'll be looking forward to your response to post #116. Until then, I will respect your wishes.

Thanks for the dialogue,
BFA

 

[sentipente]

How many times will you repeat those platitudes?

 

[common tater]

When a professional athlete re-signs with a team and they negotiate and agree to a new contract, they operate under the stipulations of that new contract. This in no way implies that the old contract was a bad contract. It does mean that the old contract is obsolete. By that same token, the player and the team hold to the terms of that new agreement, not the contract of a different player on the team.

Paul was very, very passionate about this. I suggest that you read Galatians, and then read it again, and then read it again. I really believe that it is a book that is so directed at Adventists. I'm a former SDA and I think Paul, as a former pharisee, has Adventism clearly in his sights with this book. By the by, he addresses the sabbath, as well as the yearly feasts (Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, etc.), and the monthly sabbaths in Chapter 4, verses 9 & 10.

 

[Mankin]

Galations imo supplies inconclusive evidence about whether or not Sabbath keeping should be practiced. For example, the verse about the Sabbath days probably refers to the feast days. Also, consider this, if Sabbath was no longer binding, why was this point not made clear in the Bible? Even when Paul talked about the old covenant he did say we should not consider this new covenant a passport to sin as much as we desire.

 

[common tater]

Galatians 4:9,10 does mean the feast days, but it also means the yearly sabbaths (7-year and jubilee), as well as the new moon sabbaths and the weekly sabbaths. There are many verses in the old testament that use the phrase "days, months, seasons, and years" or variations thereof and these all refer to the weekly, as well as what you would consider the ceremonial sabbaths. See 1 Chronicles 23:31, 2 Chronicles 8:13, 2 Chronicles 31:3, Nehemiah 10:33, Isaiah 1:13,14, Ezekial 45:17, Hosea 2:11.

That fourth commandment says more than "remember the sabbath day". It requires you not to work. It also requires you not to make others work. When I was an SDA and went to church every week, I and every other person in our church broke that commandment every week when we showered, turned our lights on, ran the air conditioning, listened to the pastor over the loud speakers, reheated the sabbath dinners that had been prepared on friday, and everything else that required the folks down at the electric company, gas company, phone company to work so that we might enjoy our sabbath rest.

I agree with you. Paul is in no way saying that we have a license to sin. But I also wonder why, if the sabbath was so important, the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 didn't include it with the other stipulations for the gentile christians.

 

[Mankin]

Well if it was part of the commandments then it would be meanliless to contradict it. For example, they wouldn't have talked about whether it was correct or not to murder someone or to steal from others.

The new covenant goes beyond the law but it does not contradict it.

 

[common tater]

May I ask you a question before I phrase my reply? Do you believe the Old Covenant to still be binding on Christians? If so, do you believe that the entire Law applies or only parts of it? If only parts of it apply, which parts?

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

welcome to the PMFA forum. If you desire to spam for tradventism, dial '1' now.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

hey look. daimonizomai makesy nonsabbatarian nonsequitur!