-
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.
Pastor leaves Adventism
- Thread starter NightEternal
- Start date
Moriah_Conquering_Wind
Well-Known Member
Don't be ridiculous Jim. You did not "offend" me and I do not believe you are being "negative" or "hateful". I spoke to you of the objective reality of the human condition which you apparently are incapable of perceiving somehow as applies to yourself. You seem to think it is possible to erase your own mind, its limitations, and subjectivity entirely from the equation of faith and comprehension of Scripture so that your comprehension somehow equates to that of God Himself, but you are deceived. No creature in mortal flesh has that capacity, and it is failure to realize that which is killing the church you love. Now, you can listen and try to learn something here or you can keep fighting and clinging stubbornly to what I can only perceive as a holier-than-thou attitude toward me and delude yourself into thinking you are more pure than I and therefore more accurate concerning the nature of God and the things of God. But I warn you, to fail to listen -- if not to me, than to another who bears the same witness -- and to fail to learn -- if not from me, then from another who bears the same witness -- will only leave you and your church in the same stagnating, dying rut it has been in for the past 25 years (and possibly more; my firsthand contact with it only goes back to the early 1980s). Whither I go, ye CANNOT come ... and unless you believe that I (or another who bears the same witness) KNOW whereof I (or they) speak, your church will continue to stagnate and crumble, dying slowly, shaking its head and every 10 years reinterpreting the legends and lore to make it seem like "Oh, THIS is it finally, the One Big Shaking!" or the Omega or WHATEVER. The Latter Rain is coming soon because the Seven Thunders are about to be unsealed before the inhabitants of the earth, and the Seventh Angel is about to sound, and the Mystery of God will be FINISHED as He declared to His servants the prophets. It will be falling on hearts all around you and you probably won't even notice. Anti-EGW? God bless her she saw it too and wrote about it. She is not to blame for the travesty men made of her work, which travesty she sought to discourage.
Put ASIDE these lesser, cowardly weapons -- they do NOT become you. Lay aside the posturing and fencing stances and maneuvers and subtle attempts at spindoctoring and mind manipulation for two seconds and allow for the possibility of Reality to sink in. Ye cannot put new wine in old wineskins ...
Put ASIDE these lesser, cowardly weapons -- they do NOT become you. Lay aside the posturing and fencing stances and maneuvers and subtle attempts at spindoctoring and mind manipulation for two seconds and allow for the possibility of Reality to sink in. Ye cannot put new wine in old wineskins ...
Upvote
0
djconklin
Moderate SDA
You prove that by your lifestyle--living, say, as an extreme example to make the point clear, as a Hugh Hefner isn't going to cut it.
That's works, not obedience -- the distinction was pointed out previously on this forum.
I contend that it does teach abstinence AND against drunkenness--there is consistency.
Upvote
0
Praise God, I look foward to seeing you there and believe me I could never be good enough without Christ to stand there when He appears.
Statements like this is not from the Lord as they are designed to anger or cause negative responses. You can do better than this brother, rise above this sort of thing.
The Bible tells me that what ever I do including eating or drinking do all to the glory of God. Do you think you can take a shot of whiskey or drink a beer to the glory of God?
Neither is polygamy but I can show that it is not what God planned for us to do. Why persue a course of action that is against the creator's plan or wishes?
The Bible speaks of eating to drunkedness too but I don't know of anyone who has been literally drunk from eating too much. Drunkedness in the Bible is intemperance or mistreating the body temple which is not yours to begin with.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
Upvote
0
freeindeed2
In Christ We Are FREE!
They're just severely obese from overeating. My favorite is when an obese pastor pays a visit to a member to confront them on their temperance 'issue' of drinking a glass of wine with their evening meal. It's plank vs. speck of dust.
Upvote
0
djconklin
Moderate SDA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimlarmore
The Bible speaks of eating to drunkedness too but I don't know of anyone who has been literally drunk from eating too much.
They're just severely obese from overeating. My favorite is when an obese pastor pays a visit to a member to confront them on their temperance 'issue' of drinking a glass of wine with their evening meal. It's plank vs. speck of dust.
I've seen some pastors who are overweight. On the one hand, I'd get in his face and tell him he's setting a lousy example. However, since I had stomach surgery and can't do any stomach exercises and like many(?) pastors sit in front of my computer all day and the eating between meals when bored doesn't help any either the resulting bulge from both would preclude that.
On the other hand, we have also had far more pastors who needed to put on a few pounds! A stiff wind and they'd be blown away! Mark Finley is an excellant example. Saw him on campus at Andrews. Oh my! So skinny!
Upvote
0
Moriah_Conquering_Wind
Well-Known Member
Sure, let me go back through and see what gave me that impression. Two shakes.
Upvote
0
Moriah_Conquering_Wind
Well-Known Member
OK this is by no means comprehensive but just a few examples. His statements are in black and my comments are in RED.
Post #153:
Some of our seasoned sisters can castigate a new lady member by coming on too strong about our position on this. I believe in most cases we need to allow the Holy Spirit to convict these folks as they grow in the faith. We are not at the same place in our walk with the Lord. It takes time to get where the Lord will eventually lead us.
The presupposition of a one-size-fits-all foregone conclusion concerning WHERE God will supposedly lead EVERYONE, ALL ALIKE, is a misapprehension not only about the nature of the faith journey itself, let alone its goals and purposes, but about the nature of God Himself. It indicates a mindset where one's own views about what Scripture teaches have been conflated with the postulate of the precise mind of God Himself, and even in so doing, limits the conceptualization of the nature of the mind of God to something far narrower and binary than most human minds stretch.
Post #158:
Justification and rationalization of cherished sins is compromise and nothing else. I'm not saying you have to be this or that to be saved, the Bible and the One who inspired it is. Don't listen to anything I say, listen to what God and the Bible tells you. If the Lord convicts you to walk a certain way and if you refuse ...
The automatic assumption that speaking of the possibility of life outside the one-size-fits-all-foregone-conclusion constitutes "justification and rationalization of cherished sin" is not just "telling" but a classic mechanism to reinforce the control structure by having it appear one cannot step outside the closed loop of the control system.
The "I'm not saying ... [BUT] ... the Bible and [God] is [sic]..." is a "double-bind" cover for the equation of the two in the mind. It makes appear as if separate and dichotomous that which is in reality one and the same: the author's perception of what Scripture says IS what Scripture (and God through Scripture) says, as far as both the author and these constructs are concerned. The problem is, these two are NOT identical -- the same is true for any one of us and OUR perceptions of what Scripture states as well. There IS an objective postulate concerning the meanings placed therein by the Author of the Word (the Living Word), as well as a method of parabolic approach toward that objective postulate which we may ever draw nearer to but never entirely contain in ourselves. But to presume to state unequivocally "THIS IS what Scripture states" is an arrogance unseemly for any of us. To remain within truth and authenticity, we may each state only "this is what I UNDERSTAND Scripture to be saying." Therein lieth humility.
Keep in mind also that his statements are in the context of a system where one-size-fits-all is a foregone conclusion, and programmatic structures are in place to foist said 'convictions' upon people within that structure. The vaguely implied threat intoned at the end is a classic element of this type of structure designed to reinforce control over the mind by foisting an inward tyranny upon the conscience and a simultaneous perception this comes from God along with a FEAR to consider it might have another source (such as human psychological control mechanisms).
Post #174:
I have agreed totally with Moriah that our church family needs to handle our new converts with care and avoid conflicts which is what Paul is basically saying in this chapter. However, unless I am mistaken I feel that she is concerned more with the fact that I embrace absolute truth as the Bible teaches it. That there is truth beyond the Bible that those like myself seem to refuse to see.
The first statement needs no explanation if you read my comments above. It is a bald-faced, blatant declaration on the part of the author that his views of what Scripture states are one and the same as what Scripture actually states, thus essentially a claim to possess perfect unquestionable revelation of the mind of God and contain that in his own limited perceptions. Blasphemy in my estimation, though I do not mean that in a hostile or accusatory sense; most men are unaware that this is blasphemy of the highest order and I believe the Most High forgives their ignorance, even winks at it for a time, until through such moments as these He challenges them to open their eyes and put a sock in it.
(I'm being cheeky here but not entirely unserious and certainly not without a point.)
The second statement bolded simply evinces the presence of further control mechanisms. The automatic assignment of what one does not see to being "extrabiblical" revelation of some sort is designed to simultaneously reinforce the control structures as well as dismiss and invalidate anything which threatens them by automatically assigning it to potentially untrustworthy origin, even the demonic or the anathema. This is magical thinking, hoping the intrusive "key" element which threatens the firm grasp of the slave-fetters will go "poof" and disappear. Doomsday cults frequently utilize similar methods on their adherents as well, to keep logic and sane rational thought at bay from breaking the programming.
Post #179:
However, I can't see who [sic] you can conclude I don't embrace the absolute truth in the Bible since we haven't even discussed anything specific about the Bible yet.
This is a slipping of issues conflating the structural with the axiomatic. The assumption that "embracing the absolute truth in the Bible" -- or conversely the lack or failure to do so -- consists in an examination of specific points of topical study is one of many axiomatic fallacies which underpin this particular problem. The one holding that axiom assumes the search for Truth to be something to be "lawyered out" through the wrangling of words extracted from the dead letter alone. The proof text method is the most obnoxious of fallacious argument styles which attends this type of thinking, but I have even seen misuse of Greek exegesis employed in similar fashion -- and it's NOT pretty. At any rate through this particular underpinning axiomatic fallacy, that which is actually an axiomatic (ontological/epistemological) issue is reconfigured as a structural issue, and more specifically a competition to see whose structure can be lawyered out more convincingly.
This just for starters. I have spent an inordinate amount of time on this post as I felt the subject of sufficient import. I do NOT typically spend two hours carefully constructing a single post, so I pray it will be received with the same respect that went into its careful presentation.
And Jim if I overreacted during our day conversation I apologize. I get excited over some of these things and being of feral nature it is difficult to restrain myself to human convention. I assure you if you will invest in patience with the foibles of the messenger for the sake of the message, you shall surely not lose your reward.
Post #153:
Some of our seasoned sisters can castigate a new lady member by coming on too strong about our position on this. I believe in most cases we need to allow the Holy Spirit to convict these folks as they grow in the faith. We are not at the same place in our walk with the Lord. It takes time to get where the Lord will eventually lead us.
The presupposition of a one-size-fits-all foregone conclusion concerning WHERE God will supposedly lead EVERYONE, ALL ALIKE, is a misapprehension not only about the nature of the faith journey itself, let alone its goals and purposes, but about the nature of God Himself. It indicates a mindset where one's own views about what Scripture teaches have been conflated with the postulate of the precise mind of God Himself, and even in so doing, limits the conceptualization of the nature of the mind of God to something far narrower and binary than most human minds stretch.
Post #158:
Justification and rationalization of cherished sins is compromise and nothing else. I'm not saying you have to be this or that to be saved, the Bible and the One who inspired it is. Don't listen to anything I say, listen to what God and the Bible tells you. If the Lord convicts you to walk a certain way and if you refuse ...
The automatic assumption that speaking of the possibility of life outside the one-size-fits-all-foregone-conclusion constitutes "justification and rationalization of cherished sin" is not just "telling" but a classic mechanism to reinforce the control structure by having it appear one cannot step outside the closed loop of the control system.
The "I'm not saying ... [BUT] ... the Bible and [God] is [sic]..." is a "double-bind" cover for the equation of the two in the mind. It makes appear as if separate and dichotomous that which is in reality one and the same: the author's perception of what Scripture says IS what Scripture (and God through Scripture) says, as far as both the author and these constructs are concerned. The problem is, these two are NOT identical -- the same is true for any one of us and OUR perceptions of what Scripture states as well. There IS an objective postulate concerning the meanings placed therein by the Author of the Word (the Living Word), as well as a method of parabolic approach toward that objective postulate which we may ever draw nearer to but never entirely contain in ourselves. But to presume to state unequivocally "THIS IS what Scripture states" is an arrogance unseemly for any of us. To remain within truth and authenticity, we may each state only "this is what I UNDERSTAND Scripture to be saying." Therein lieth humility.
Keep in mind also that his statements are in the context of a system where one-size-fits-all is a foregone conclusion, and programmatic structures are in place to foist said 'convictions' upon people within that structure. The vaguely implied threat intoned at the end is a classic element of this type of structure designed to reinforce control over the mind by foisting an inward tyranny upon the conscience and a simultaneous perception this comes from God along with a FEAR to consider it might have another source (such as human psychological control mechanisms).
Post #174:
I have agreed totally with Moriah that our church family needs to handle our new converts with care and avoid conflicts which is what Paul is basically saying in this chapter. However, unless I am mistaken I feel that she is concerned more with the fact that I embrace absolute truth as the Bible teaches it. That there is truth beyond the Bible that those like myself seem to refuse to see.
The first statement needs no explanation if you read my comments above. It is a bald-faced, blatant declaration on the part of the author that his views of what Scripture states are one and the same as what Scripture actually states, thus essentially a claim to possess perfect unquestionable revelation of the mind of God and contain that in his own limited perceptions. Blasphemy in my estimation, though I do not mean that in a hostile or accusatory sense; most men are unaware that this is blasphemy of the highest order and I believe the Most High forgives their ignorance, even winks at it for a time, until through such moments as these He challenges them to open their eyes and put a sock in it.
(I'm being cheeky here but not entirely unserious and certainly not without a point.)The second statement bolded simply evinces the presence of further control mechanisms. The automatic assignment of what one does not see to being "extrabiblical" revelation of some sort is designed to simultaneously reinforce the control structures as well as dismiss and invalidate anything which threatens them by automatically assigning it to potentially untrustworthy origin, even the demonic or the anathema. This is magical thinking, hoping the intrusive "key" element which threatens the firm grasp of the slave-fetters will go "poof" and disappear. Doomsday cults frequently utilize similar methods on their adherents as well, to keep logic and sane rational thought at bay from breaking the programming.
Post #179:
However, I can't see who [sic] you can conclude I don't embrace the absolute truth in the Bible since we haven't even discussed anything specific about the Bible yet.
This is a slipping of issues conflating the structural with the axiomatic. The assumption that "embracing the absolute truth in the Bible" -- or conversely the lack or failure to do so -- consists in an examination of specific points of topical study is one of many axiomatic fallacies which underpin this particular problem. The one holding that axiom assumes the search for Truth to be something to be "lawyered out" through the wrangling of words extracted from the dead letter alone. The proof text method is the most obnoxious of fallacious argument styles which attends this type of thinking, but I have even seen misuse of Greek exegesis employed in similar fashion -- and it's NOT pretty. At any rate through this particular underpinning axiomatic fallacy, that which is actually an axiomatic (ontological/epistemological) issue is reconfigured as a structural issue, and more specifically a competition to see whose structure can be lawyered out more convincingly.
This just for starters. I have spent an inordinate amount of time on this post as I felt the subject of sufficient import. I do NOT typically spend two hours carefully constructing a single post, so I pray it will be received with the same respect that went into its careful presentation.
And Jim if I overreacted during our day conversation I apologize. I get excited over some of these things and being of feral nature it is difficult to restrain myself to human convention. I assure you if you will invest in patience with the foibles of the messenger for the sake of the message, you shall surely not lose your reward.
Upvote
0
- Apr 18, 2007
- 5,639
- 127
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
You prove that by your lifestyle--living, say, as an extreme example to make the point clear, as a Hugh Hefner isn't going to cut it.
Nothing at all wrong with trying to live within God's will. Where you think I am advocating living life like Hugh Hefner is totally beyond me.
I will never understand why it is that those who want to oppose righteousness by faith alone always make these ridiculous assumptions that we are saying we should just go out and live like a raw pagan. If all that keeps most Christians from indulging in a sinful lifestyle is the law or the rules that are in place, that is pretty sad. I choose to not live like Hugh Hefner. Even if I did, it still would not make God love me any less.
That's works, not obedience -- the distinction was pointed out previously on this forum.
If it is done to appease God or in an effort to sway our salvational standing in His favor, it is works, period. To say we do anything to 'prepare' to face our Lord insinuates that something we do is able to placate an angry God who is getting ready for a full inspection of His people. It is an underlying attempt to instill fear into the believer and it portrays God as an exacting dictator who is using our obedience as the criteria for our salvation. This totally nullifies any need for Christ's imputed righteousness. It makes it all about us and nothing about Him.
We obey because He has saved us and we love Him. We do not obey to make ourselves worthy to pass some inspection and gain what has already been secured at the cross.
I contend that it does teach abstinence AND against drunkenness--there is consistency.
Then we are not seeing remotely the same thing in Scripture.
Nothing at all wrong with trying to live within God's will. Where you think I am advocating living life like Hugh Hefner is totally beyond me.
I will never understand why it is that those who want to oppose righteousness by faith alone always make these ridiculous assumptions that we are saying we should just go out and live like a raw pagan. If all that keeps most Christians from indulging in a sinful lifestyle is the law or the rules that are in place, that is pretty sad. I choose to not live like Hugh Hefner. Even if I did, it still would not make God love me any less.
That's works, not obedience -- the distinction was pointed out previously on this forum.
If it is done to appease God or in an effort to sway our salvational standing in His favor, it is works, period. To say we do anything to 'prepare' to face our Lord insinuates that something we do is able to placate an angry God who is getting ready for a full inspection of His people. It is an underlying attempt to instill fear into the believer and it portrays God as an exacting dictator who is using our obedience as the criteria for our salvation. This totally nullifies any need for Christ's imputed righteousness. It makes it all about us and nothing about Him.
We obey because He has saved us and we love Him. We do not obey to make ourselves worthy to pass some inspection and gain what has already been secured at the cross.
I contend that it does teach abstinence AND against drunkenness--there is consistency.
Then we are not seeing remotely the same thing in Scripture.
Upvote
0
- Apr 18, 2007
- 5,639
- 127
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Praise God, I look foward to seeing you there and believe me I could never be good enough without Christ to stand there when He appears.
I would totally agree with you here, but my years in dealing with TSDA theology makes me hesitant. I know how loaded terms 'without Christ' can be. Quite often the intended meaning is not the same as I understand it.
That being said, if you are contending you could never be good enough without Christ's imputed righteousness in your place, then I would agree.
Statements like this is not from the Lord as they are designed to anger or cause negative responses. You can do better than this brother, rise above this sort of thing.
I had no such intentions. You assume too much and already cast my motivations in the worst possible light.
Martin Luther wanted to appease God by purifying himself of his sinfulness. After he read Romans, he realized nothing he could do would ever influence God in any way. That includes fasting. That includes maintaining a strict diet. That includes abstinence. That includes anything one does with the intention of making oneself 'worthy' of facing Jesus, which your previous post clearly implied. Such obedience Christ considers filthy rags.
The Bible tells me that what ever I do including eating or drinking do all to the glory of God. Do you think you can take a shot of whiskey or drink a beer to the glory of God?
Actually, I don't drink (unless you consider 2 glasses of red wine with dinner in the last 14 years qualifying me as a 'drinker'.) But it says volumes that you assumed I do. Regardless, Proverbs 31:4 recommends strong drink for those with heavy hearts to lift thier spirits. The Bible clearly does not prohibit the occasional use of wine for special or specific occasions. Deuteronomy 14:26: "Use the silver to buy whatever you like; cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice." And since there are health benefits to drinking the occasional glass of wine, you certainly could drink it to the glory of God:
http://www.pursuingthetruth.org/studies/files/wine_consumption.htm
Neither is polygamy but I can show that it is not what God planned for us to do.
That is an absurd comparison.
Why persue a course of action that is against the creator's plan or wishes?
Since I do not believe the Bible teaches abstinence, I am advocating nothing that I am convicted or aware of that would displease God.
The Bible speaks of eating to drunkedness too but I don't know of anyone who has been literally drunk from eating too much. Drunkedness in the Bible is intemperance or mistreating the body temple which is not yours to begin with.
You have yet to show from the Bible that an occasional glass of wine qualifies as intemperance or drunkeness. Furthermore, I have linked to an article that clearly shows the health benefits of the moderate use of wine, hardly 'mistreating' the body.
Regardless, it is not my intention to start yet another discussion on this topic. We already have three threads in the archives and we certainly don't need another one to show we can go in circles and come right back to our firmly held positions.
My thread here has completely and hopelessly been derailed it seems.
I would totally agree with you here, but my years in dealing with TSDA theology makes me hesitant. I know how loaded terms 'without Christ' can be. Quite often the intended meaning is not the same as I understand it.
That being said, if you are contending you could never be good enough without Christ's imputed righteousness in your place, then I would agree.
Statements like this is not from the Lord as they are designed to anger or cause negative responses. You can do better than this brother, rise above this sort of thing.
I had no such intentions. You assume too much and already cast my motivations in the worst possible light.
Martin Luther wanted to appease God by purifying himself of his sinfulness. After he read Romans, he realized nothing he could do would ever influence God in any way. That includes fasting. That includes maintaining a strict diet. That includes abstinence. That includes anything one does with the intention of making oneself 'worthy' of facing Jesus, which your previous post clearly implied. Such obedience Christ considers filthy rags.
The Bible tells me that what ever I do including eating or drinking do all to the glory of God. Do you think you can take a shot of whiskey or drink a beer to the glory of God?
Actually, I don't drink (unless you consider 2 glasses of red wine with dinner in the last 14 years qualifying me as a 'drinker'.) But it says volumes that you assumed I do. Regardless, Proverbs 31:4 recommends strong drink for those with heavy hearts to lift thier spirits. The Bible clearly does not prohibit the occasional use of wine for special or specific occasions. Deuteronomy 14:26: "Use the silver to buy whatever you like; cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice." And since there are health benefits to drinking the occasional glass of wine, you certainly could drink it to the glory of God:
http://www.pursuingthetruth.org/studies/files/wine_consumption.htm
Neither is polygamy but I can show that it is not what God planned for us to do.
That is an absurd comparison.
Why persue a course of action that is against the creator's plan or wishes?
Since I do not believe the Bible teaches abstinence, I am advocating nothing that I am convicted or aware of that would displease God.
The Bible speaks of eating to drunkedness too but I don't know of anyone who has been literally drunk from eating too much. Drunkedness in the Bible is intemperance or mistreating the body temple which is not yours to begin with.
You have yet to show from the Bible that an occasional glass of wine qualifies as intemperance or drunkeness. Furthermore, I have linked to an article that clearly shows the health benefits of the moderate use of wine, hardly 'mistreating' the body.
Regardless, it is not my intention to start yet another discussion on this topic. We already have three threads in the archives and we certainly don't need another one to show we can go in circles and come right back to our firmly held positions.
My thread here has completely and hopelessly been derailed it seems.
Upvote
0
Moriah_Conquering_Wind
Well-Known Member
I would not call it entirely derailed. Talking of pastors leaving denominational .orgs naturally leads to discussion of what is upheaving in those .orgs, which in turn naturally leads to swapping opinions & positions on those upheaving things ... etc. It's all related in the end.
Upvote
0
sentipente
Senior Contributor
- Jul 17, 2007
- 11,651
- 4,492
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Politics
- US-Others
But he will when we are all changed in a moment, whether you like it or not. I know the argument you will want to make but I would remind you that you, in your present state, would find it just as unpalatable to share breathing space with Hugh Hefner as you think he would find it unpalatable to live in the new earth. Thank God for the promised change that will put some sense into the heads of fools who by their opinions continue to say "There is no God."
Upvote
0
djconklin
Moderate SDA
If there is nothing wrong with trying to live within God's will then why are you fighting those who are advocating it?
As for the reference to Hugh Hefner that was an extreme example to which I was sure you would agree--but apparently the rising tide of obstuseness has overtaken you too.
Upvote
0
sentipente
Senior Contributor
- Jul 17, 2007
- 11,651
- 4,492
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Politics
- US-Others
You seem to be an expert in that fine art by your ability to detect it.
Upvote
0
djconklin
Moderate SDA
Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin
but apparently the rising tide of obstuseness has overtaken you too.
You seem to be an expert in that fine art by your ability to detect it.
Many, many, many years ago I handed a neighbor her paper from a course we had taken together that she hadn't picked up. She immediately asked "Did you read it?" And then she confessed to what she knew I already knew. She had written the paper the night before it was due off the top of her head.
Christ once said to the effect that those who seek the truth will hear His voice. That's because truth has a "ring" to it that error will never ever have.
Upvote
0
djconklin
Moderate SDA
Given the position that you have expressed on this issue that is actually a more probable scenario than a mere two glasses in 14 years. In the latter case, it could be that guilt is weighing you down and you are fighting it the wrong way.
Oh, really?!? What funky translation are you using?!?
Where you thinking of this?
Proverbs 31:6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.
You do realize it says that because they didn't have painkillers and antidepressants, right? It also implies one is not to self-medicate. Secondly, as we have already noted they didn't have "strong drink" in those days--distilling not being discovered till 500 A.D.--and that the word refers to a sugary drink that would be sweet to the taste. So, far from the text pushing the use of alcohol it is quite restricted and it may be that there's something in the juice of the grape that helps to deal with depression.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
