By Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Long-time homosexual activist Frank Kameny's claim to fame is successfully manipulating the American Psychiatric Association into declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder, and today the Smithsonian honoree is now busily advocating bestiality "as long as the animal doesn't mind."
Kameny, 83, has had a long career advocating the removal of any restrictions on human acts long considered by sane societies as obscene, dangerous, and disordered.
However the octogenarian has a new mission to complement his current campaign to pressure the APA to ban reparative therapy for homosexuals. Kameny describes his mission as "Americanism in action" by advocating bestiality and encouraging the saturation of American culture with what he calls "more and better and harder-core pornography."
According to Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH), Kameny wrote an e-mail to them saying that while he was personally opposed to bestiality, he found it an otherwise "harmless" quirk, so long as it was consensual with the animal involved.
"Bestiality is not my thing," Kameny wrote. "But it seems to be a harmless foible or idiosyncrasy of some people. So, as long as the animal doesn't mind (and the animal rarely does), I don't mind, and I don't see why anyone else should."
Americans for Truth president Peter LaBarbera said Kameny's outrageous statement begged a number of questions.
"We have many questions for Kameny, the first being: how exactly does an animal signal his or her 'consent' to have sex with a human?" queried LaBarbera.
In his May 31, 2008 e-mail to AFTAH, Kameny prefaced his comments by saying "the term 'sexual perversion' is devoid of objective meaning" and added that the correct definition for him was "any sexual practice disapproved of by the speaker."
"If something which someone arbitrarily defines as a 'sexual perversion' provides happiness for consenting adult participants, then its enjoyment is enshrined in basic Americanism," Kameny wrote. "So: Let us have more and better enjoyment of more and better sexual perversions, by whatever definition, by more and more consenting adults. We will all be the better off thereby. And that will be Americanism in action."
Kameny made the bold claim that the founding fathers of the United States implicitly approved of uninhibited sexual exploits or "sexual perversion" when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, because he believes it is part of the "Inalienable Right, of the 'Pursuit of Happiness'".
Kameny included bestiality and hardcore pornography as "Americanism in action" and said that those who wanted to suppress it were "the American Taliban, and Christianofascism in action."
Kameny said he is the founder and president of the National Consumers Association for the Advancement and Protection of Pornography, Inc. He told Americans for Truth, "Give some thought to what Americanism and our American freedoms really mean. It is clear that you haven't a clue."
Kameny has been painted by some on the moral left as a "civil rights leader." His 1965 protest signs that contributed to the removal of homosexuality from the APA's list of mental disorders will be displayed at the National Museum of American History, and his papers will be archived at the Library of Congress. Americans for Truth, however, have protested against recognizing Kameny as a civil rights leader, observing that Kameny has advocated moral anarchy in all sexual matters, contributing further to the accelerating breakdown of modern American society, especially through the destruction of the family.
source
Jemdude's comments:
I hope that the gay community will speak out against this and show that Frank Kameny is not speaking for gays as a whole on this issue.
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
Monday, 5 May 2008
Chuck Baldwin wins the Constitution Party 2008 nomination
Convening its national convention in Kansas City today, the Constitution Party picked radio talk-show host Chuck Baldwin over former Ambassador Alan Keyes as its 2008 presidential candidate.
The pick was seen as something of an upset, given Keyes' higher national profile. Known for his fiery stem-winders, Keyes is a two-time GOP presidential candidate who abandoned the Republican Party this month to join the Constitution Party, which believes in limited government and is committed to ending abortion and bringing American troops home from Iraq.
But Baldwin's roots in the Constitution Party run deeper. He was the party's 2004 vice-presidential candidate, and party members said his stands were more in line with party thinking.
"Chuck is the real deal," said Jim Clymer, the party's national chairman.
Still, the two waged a fierce battle described as the most contentious in the party's 16-year history. Baldwin wound up winning easily on a 384-126 vote. The Missouri and Kansas delegations basically split their votes between the two.
"They just rejected the most qualified man to be president," said Tom Hoefling of Lohrville, Iowa, Keyes' national political director. "Chuck Baldwin will have no impact on this election whatsoever."
The party's immediate tasks, Clymer said, are raising money and gaining ballot access in each state. The party now has qualified to be on the ballots of 21 states. He expects the eventual total to top 40 and include Kansas and Missouri. "We're always short on money," Clymer said.
In his acceptance speech, Baldwin said his presidency would result in the ending of illegal immigration, abortion, the streamlining of the federal government, the tapping of oil reserves in Alaska and withdrawal from Iraq.
"We will stop the international meddling...this international empire-building," Baldwin said.
When he takes office, Baldwin said, "The new world order comes crashing down!"
He pledged not only to pull out of the United Nations, but to push the international organization out of New York.
"The U.N. is going to have to find themselves another (home) because their rent is up in New York City," he said.
He said he would phase out the Internal Revenue Service and end the paying of personal income taxes. He said the country should return to the gold standard.
Home schoolers, he said, would have the best friend they ever had in the White House.
source
Chuck Baldwin's 33 minute acceptance speech
video
Fox News coverage of Constitution Party prior to choosing candidate:
video
Constitution Party Website
link
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Bella Released in Canadian Theaters Today
Bella is a movie that promotes a pro-life message. It also shows the struggle some women face when being in the situation of deciding whether or not to have an abortion or to keep the baby or to adopt. A must see movie.
article
article
Sunday, 30 March 2008
Fitna the Movie: Geert Wilders' film about the Quran
Saturday, 22 March 2008
Jem let the music play
Here is one of my favorite videos. It is Let The Music Play with Jem and the Hologram scenes in it.
video
video
Monday, 17 March 2008
Sunday, 9 March 2008
An answer to Adventist critisism
Jemdude's note: The following is a general answer to criticism some have toward the Adventist Church or those who believe Adventists are some kind of "cult".
TO MY CHRISTIAN FRIENDS OF MANY DENOMINATIONS
I have interacted with many Evangelicals over the years who just don't get Seventh-day Adventist theology and I'd like to give you a few things to think about. In dealing with your Adventist friends, I'm sure you've spent many long hours searching out Bible verses to argue about various points. I won't therefore bother to do the same here. This statement is not about trying to win an argument. Doctrinal correctness and moral correctness are two different things, but both are necessary for a right understanding of God and His truth. This is about asking you to look at some simple points of logic that I hope will explain the Adventist position on a number of topics. I write this as an individual Seventh-day Adventist Christian and draw this information from my own study of the Bible. I am not speaking as an official representative of the Church.
#1. I've always found two things in common regarding anti-Adventist rhetoric. One is a rejection of the 1844 Sanctuary Doctrine, dealt with below. The other is the bad example of some individual church member who has turned the author of the book, video or website off to the church. Yes there are many people within the Adventist Church who may seem cult-like in the way they act. That's because they don't really understand their own beliefs. That does not in and of itself constitute a valid reason for criticizing the group as a whole however. The same problems with human nature exist in every church. After much time being fed from the pulpit, lay church members often end up trusting their minister for salvation and not studying enough on an individual basis. This always leads to either liberal permissiveness or conservative extremism because the people end up idolizing their leaders.
#2. The supposed Adventist emphasis on works for salvation is totally being misunderstood in the Evangelical camp. The way to understand it is that Sanctification is JUSTIFICATION ALL OVER AGAIN! Jesus purges you of what you know to be sin when you accept Him, and then the Holy Spirit guides you through the rest of your life teaching you practical, faith-growth lessons that improve you as a person. All this is also done by the grace of God and therefore comes from Christ. Adventists are simply following what He has revealed as they individually study His word.
Are you a member of a church that teaches in order to be saved you must first repent of your sin and then accept Jesus as your Saviour? Well, what then is the definition of sin? Without the Law in it's proper place, there is no clear definition. Is it a sin to drink alcohol, yes or no? Is it a sin to wear jewellery, yes or no? The list of "do's and don'ts" within Adventism is much larger than that of many other born-again believing faith groups. However, that list is the result of serious Bible study and these "do's and don'ts" are not rules, they are a vital part of the salvation experience. Jesus has saved us from alcohol, unclean meat, jewellery and many other things the world says is important. Has He saved you to this degree as well? Jesus has saved us from wrong understandings of what constitutes keeping His Holy day by drawing our attention to the fourth commandment. He has saved us from spiritualism and the lies of the New Age movement by teaching us the truth about death. Remember, it's by mercy AND truth that we are saved, Proverbs 16:6. Is this experience the same for you?
#3. People don't understand the 1844 Sanctuary Doctrine because they don't realize we're forgiven in two ways. Every time anyone does something good, an Angel writes it down. Any time anyone does something bad, an Angel writes it down. With all the billions of people who've lived over the 6 millennia of human history, that's trillions, maybe even quadrillions of sins all written down. God Himself with His infinite mind could deal with it in a second couldn't He? But Angels don't have infinite minds, do they?
AGAIN, WE'RE FORGIVEN IN TWO WAYS! The Holy Spirit speaks to each person's heart while that person is alive and offers forgiveness as a promise to claim. Jesus promises that because he won the victory over sin by dying and rising again for us, He will wipe out the sins of anyone who accepts this victory in true faith. The 1844 Sanctuary Doctrine is simply stating that Jesus has been doing exactly that since 1844 for all whom He will rescue at the Second Coming, with the secretarial help of the 100 million Angels mentioned in Daniel chapter 7. By wiping out the sins of the righteous ahead of time in the presence of the Heavenly beings, Jesus is not only keeping His promise to each one of those who've accepted Him, He's doing it in a way that will prove to the rest of the universe that He is just and fair, and that these people can be trusted with salvation. Acts 3:19 confirms this as Peter clearly says that the forgiveness to come is not instantaneous but at “the times of refreshing“. (It becomes easier to understand when one accepts the truth about death, dealt with next.)
#4. Regarding what you call "soul sleep", why is it wrong to go to a seance? Why is the New Age movement of the devil? Because every time anyone tries to contact the dead, they are contacting evil angels. Even the appearances of Mary and supposed miracles of the dead saints within Catholicism are nothing but evil angels in disguise. The truth about death, that none of us go to Heaven until the Second Coming is just that, truth. You don't have a soul, you are a soul. Notice carefully the exact wording of Genesis 2:7. Man became a soul when body and “breath of life” were put together by the Lord.
Your computer has a processor that is a physical piece of hardware. It doesn't work without the force and power of electricity does it? BUT! The electricity itself doesn't do the processing alone, it's just electricity. It's the same with your mind. You run on electricity, but the electricity is not going to go to Heaven, you are. This truth puts Heaven in the same physical reality as this world. There is no such thing as a spirit world and Heaven is not a ghosty-whispy fairyland, nor is it in some sort of other dimension, a peusdo-scientific way of saying the same thing. Heaven is as real as the table your computer is sitting on, as real as your house or car or anything else.
John 14:1-3 show very clearly that Jesus promised after He went to Heaven, He'd come back and take us there. In other words, while He's preparing a place for us (which really is a reference to His work in the Sanctuary), we are not there with Him! Why would He need to come back and get us if we all went there as soon as we died anyway? We fall asleep in death, go to our graves, and will be awakened by Him at the resurrection.
#5. Ellen White's writings are not a new Bible like the claims made about Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy and others. They are simply a Bible Commentary, the same Bible over again in greater detail. There's no conflict as each one of our teachings can be found in the Bible itself. There were many prophets mentioned in the Bible who did not get their written words added to the Canon of Holy Scripture, Nathan from the time of David is a good example. Their ministry was significant to their existing generation only. Adventists think of Ellen White in a similar vein as is shown by their book, “Questions On Doctrine“, pages 89-98.
Regarding her supposed false prophecies, was Jonah a false prophet? There is such a thing as conditional prophecies not coming true when conditions change. Regarding her 'extrabiblical' statements, look up Matthew 22:30 and tell me where in the Old Testament Jesus gets this from? What He says there is not found anywhere else in the Bible, it's new truth. It is possible for a prophet to proclaim new truth. The test is that new truth never contradicts old truth. Regarding the question of whether God would call a woman to the role of a prophet, who was there in the temple to greet Joseph and Mary when they brought Jesus to be circumcised on the eighth day? Two prophets, one was a man, the other a woman. Philip also had daughters who prophesied.
Now let’s go on to the dreaded plagiarism charges. What does the concept of “all the glory goes to God” mean to you? Is He not the originator of all that is good? Therefore whenever anyone comes to understand something right and true, who does that truth ultimately come from? Did you know Paul plagiarized in Acts 17:28? Where is the footnote giving the exact reference to the Athenian poet(s) he is quoting? Those who lay these charges against Ellen White do so because they don’t really know how the Bible was written or how a prophet is inspired. The only words in the Bible that are direct quotes from the Lord Himself are those noted by phrases such as “thus saith the Lord”. When God inspires a prophet, be it Moses, David, Paul or Ellen White, He puts pictures in the person’s mind and then leaves the person to choose the words to describe those pictures. The concept of copyright, that a human being could take credit for and own what is ultimately taught him or her by the Lord was not the same in Mrs. White’s time as we have it today.
Let’s say that tonight the Lord gave you a vision on the subject of the futility of a life of sin. When you went to write out the meaning of the vision the only words you could think of to describe the feeling a person goes through when the Spirit convicts them of sin was “Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away, now it seems as though they’re here to stay.“ When John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote those words, they were their own. If you as God’s new prophet thought those were best described the contents of the vision you were given, they have now become the word of the Lord.
The Lord gave Ellen White vision and dreams covering a wide range of subjects. On the topic of the conflict between good and evil over human history, Ellen White was given visions and then left to study out their meaning for herself. This study came contemplating those visions, but also from the Bible and from church history. The appendices of Selected Messages, Book Three contain three letters from her son, W.C. White. In these he clearly admits that yes, at times when she thought someone else’s words best described what God had shown her in vision, she copied those words. What’s the big deal? She was the one who was given those visions in the first place. (Take careful notice how those against her fail to say anything about the Biblical way in which those visions came to her with supernatural manifestations, most notably her not breathing, sometimes for hours.)
When she spoke on what God had shown her on other topics, such as health reform, at times she was asked if she had read such and such a Health Reformer. She clearly answered that no, she purposely did not read the works of others so that no one could say that she was being influenced by another. So ultimately God was working through her and others as well. He enlightened Ellen White supernaturally and lead others to discover similar information through their life experience as medical professionals. The most significant thing about this is that since the other reformers were writing out of their own experience, they were sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Ellen White said things similar to these reformers, but without their mistakes! She was never wrong. How could that have happened if she tried, without any previous knowledge, to sort out the good from the bad of what others were saying?
Those who criticize the Adventists over doctrine should pay very close attention to what those Adventists are saying, and notice just how many Bible verses they can quote to support their beliefs. For those who believe such false doctrines as Once Saved Always Saved or the Secret Rapture, of course they're going to call Ellen White a false prophet. She isn't telling them what they want to hear. Therefore, they will tell themselves that Adventists are brainlessly following Ellen White. Stay with the Bible when you talk to an Adventist and you will see that's where our teachings come from.
#6. Christianity is all about freedom, but what kind of freedom? Do you want to be free from the law or free from sin? It has to be one or the other. Cross-reference Matthew 24:12-14 with Galatians 1:6-9 and you'll see that there are two gospels out there, one is false and one is true. Since sin is the transgression of the law according to 1 John 3:4, wouldn't freedom from sin therefore include harmony with the law? Which gospel then do you really think is true? If New Testament Christianity really has no place for the Law, then I should be able to steal the offering money in front of everyone at your church this Sunday. You already know yourself that's ridiculous.
I think the real source of the problem between you and your Adventist friend comes from a simple misunderstanding. You were once in the world, yet you saw through it's vanity and found Jesus, the only true way to Heaven. You accepted His death for your sins and came up out of the baptismal waters with a sincere desire to live a new life for Him. When your Adventist friend came to you essentially saying "hey there's still more to the experience", it baffled you. You know you were sincere, so how could you have a true experience with God and it not be the end all and be all of what is truth? Remember Proverbs 4:18. Truth is progressive, you need to be continually learning as you study God's word. The initial experience you received was from God, but it is not the end all and be all of your growth in Him, only the beginning. What your Adventist friend is sharing with you in the way of doctrine is intended to add to that growth as he or she was once where you are now.
Are you really sure your favourite minister is telling you everything you need to know? Do the 8 references to the first day of the week really outweigh the 168 references to the Seventh-day Sabbath? Are the 5 or so verses that speak as if people go to Heaven or Hell right after death being understood correctly in light of the almost 70 verses that use the concept of sleep as a metaphor for death? What then about all the verses that use words or phrases like "perish", "shall be no more", "shall be as grass", and "ashes" to describe the results of hell-fire?
Over the years I've spent a lot of time arguing doctrine with my evangelical friends. Now I see it's pointless and futile. I hope this discussion has given you some things to think about, but most of all I hope it's been done in a good way. Just please make sure you know what your Bible says. Ask God to lead you and not a human being. By understanding what your Seventh-day Adventist Church friend is trying to say, I hope you can come to peace with your friend, yourself and the Lord.
TO MY CHRISTIAN FRIENDS OF MANY DENOMINATIONS
I have interacted with many Evangelicals over the years who just don't get Seventh-day Adventist theology and I'd like to give you a few things to think about. In dealing with your Adventist friends, I'm sure you've spent many long hours searching out Bible verses to argue about various points. I won't therefore bother to do the same here. This statement is not about trying to win an argument. Doctrinal correctness and moral correctness are two different things, but both are necessary for a right understanding of God and His truth. This is about asking you to look at some simple points of logic that I hope will explain the Adventist position on a number of topics. I write this as an individual Seventh-day Adventist Christian and draw this information from my own study of the Bible. I am not speaking as an official representative of the Church.
#1. I've always found two things in common regarding anti-Adventist rhetoric. One is a rejection of the 1844 Sanctuary Doctrine, dealt with below. The other is the bad example of some individual church member who has turned the author of the book, video or website off to the church. Yes there are many people within the Adventist Church who may seem cult-like in the way they act. That's because they don't really understand their own beliefs. That does not in and of itself constitute a valid reason for criticizing the group as a whole however. The same problems with human nature exist in every church. After much time being fed from the pulpit, lay church members often end up trusting their minister for salvation and not studying enough on an individual basis. This always leads to either liberal permissiveness or conservative extremism because the people end up idolizing their leaders.
#2. The supposed Adventist emphasis on works for salvation is totally being misunderstood in the Evangelical camp. The way to understand it is that Sanctification is JUSTIFICATION ALL OVER AGAIN! Jesus purges you of what you know to be sin when you accept Him, and then the Holy Spirit guides you through the rest of your life teaching you practical, faith-growth lessons that improve you as a person. All this is also done by the grace of God and therefore comes from Christ. Adventists are simply following what He has revealed as they individually study His word.
Are you a member of a church that teaches in order to be saved you must first repent of your sin and then accept Jesus as your Saviour? Well, what then is the definition of sin? Without the Law in it's proper place, there is no clear definition. Is it a sin to drink alcohol, yes or no? Is it a sin to wear jewellery, yes or no? The list of "do's and don'ts" within Adventism is much larger than that of many other born-again believing faith groups. However, that list is the result of serious Bible study and these "do's and don'ts" are not rules, they are a vital part of the salvation experience. Jesus has saved us from alcohol, unclean meat, jewellery and many other things the world says is important. Has He saved you to this degree as well? Jesus has saved us from wrong understandings of what constitutes keeping His Holy day by drawing our attention to the fourth commandment. He has saved us from spiritualism and the lies of the New Age movement by teaching us the truth about death. Remember, it's by mercy AND truth that we are saved, Proverbs 16:6. Is this experience the same for you?
#3. People don't understand the 1844 Sanctuary Doctrine because they don't realize we're forgiven in two ways. Every time anyone does something good, an Angel writes it down. Any time anyone does something bad, an Angel writes it down. With all the billions of people who've lived over the 6 millennia of human history, that's trillions, maybe even quadrillions of sins all written down. God Himself with His infinite mind could deal with it in a second couldn't He? But Angels don't have infinite minds, do they?
AGAIN, WE'RE FORGIVEN IN TWO WAYS! The Holy Spirit speaks to each person's heart while that person is alive and offers forgiveness as a promise to claim. Jesus promises that because he won the victory over sin by dying and rising again for us, He will wipe out the sins of anyone who accepts this victory in true faith. The 1844 Sanctuary Doctrine is simply stating that Jesus has been doing exactly that since 1844 for all whom He will rescue at the Second Coming, with the secretarial help of the 100 million Angels mentioned in Daniel chapter 7. By wiping out the sins of the righteous ahead of time in the presence of the Heavenly beings, Jesus is not only keeping His promise to each one of those who've accepted Him, He's doing it in a way that will prove to the rest of the universe that He is just and fair, and that these people can be trusted with salvation. Acts 3:19 confirms this as Peter clearly says that the forgiveness to come is not instantaneous but at “the times of refreshing“. (It becomes easier to understand when one accepts the truth about death, dealt with next.)
#4. Regarding what you call "soul sleep", why is it wrong to go to a seance? Why is the New Age movement of the devil? Because every time anyone tries to contact the dead, they are contacting evil angels. Even the appearances of Mary and supposed miracles of the dead saints within Catholicism are nothing but evil angels in disguise. The truth about death, that none of us go to Heaven until the Second Coming is just that, truth. You don't have a soul, you are a soul. Notice carefully the exact wording of Genesis 2:7. Man became a soul when body and “breath of life” were put together by the Lord.
Your computer has a processor that is a physical piece of hardware. It doesn't work without the force and power of electricity does it? BUT! The electricity itself doesn't do the processing alone, it's just electricity. It's the same with your mind. You run on electricity, but the electricity is not going to go to Heaven, you are. This truth puts Heaven in the same physical reality as this world. There is no such thing as a spirit world and Heaven is not a ghosty-whispy fairyland, nor is it in some sort of other dimension, a peusdo-scientific way of saying the same thing. Heaven is as real as the table your computer is sitting on, as real as your house or car or anything else.
John 14:1-3 show very clearly that Jesus promised after He went to Heaven, He'd come back and take us there. In other words, while He's preparing a place for us (which really is a reference to His work in the Sanctuary), we are not there with Him! Why would He need to come back and get us if we all went there as soon as we died anyway? We fall asleep in death, go to our graves, and will be awakened by Him at the resurrection.
#5. Ellen White's writings are not a new Bible like the claims made about Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy and others. They are simply a Bible Commentary, the same Bible over again in greater detail. There's no conflict as each one of our teachings can be found in the Bible itself. There were many prophets mentioned in the Bible who did not get their written words added to the Canon of Holy Scripture, Nathan from the time of David is a good example. Their ministry was significant to their existing generation only. Adventists think of Ellen White in a similar vein as is shown by their book, “Questions On Doctrine“, pages 89-98.
Regarding her supposed false prophecies, was Jonah a false prophet? There is such a thing as conditional prophecies not coming true when conditions change. Regarding her 'extrabiblical' statements, look up Matthew 22:30 and tell me where in the Old Testament Jesus gets this from? What He says there is not found anywhere else in the Bible, it's new truth. It is possible for a prophet to proclaim new truth. The test is that new truth never contradicts old truth. Regarding the question of whether God would call a woman to the role of a prophet, who was there in the temple to greet Joseph and Mary when they brought Jesus to be circumcised on the eighth day? Two prophets, one was a man, the other a woman. Philip also had daughters who prophesied.
Now let’s go on to the dreaded plagiarism charges. What does the concept of “all the glory goes to God” mean to you? Is He not the originator of all that is good? Therefore whenever anyone comes to understand something right and true, who does that truth ultimately come from? Did you know Paul plagiarized in Acts 17:28? Where is the footnote giving the exact reference to the Athenian poet(s) he is quoting? Those who lay these charges against Ellen White do so because they don’t really know how the Bible was written or how a prophet is inspired. The only words in the Bible that are direct quotes from the Lord Himself are those noted by phrases such as “thus saith the Lord”. When God inspires a prophet, be it Moses, David, Paul or Ellen White, He puts pictures in the person’s mind and then leaves the person to choose the words to describe those pictures. The concept of copyright, that a human being could take credit for and own what is ultimately taught him or her by the Lord was not the same in Mrs. White’s time as we have it today.
Let’s say that tonight the Lord gave you a vision on the subject of the futility of a life of sin. When you went to write out the meaning of the vision the only words you could think of to describe the feeling a person goes through when the Spirit convicts them of sin was “Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away, now it seems as though they’re here to stay.“ When John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote those words, they were their own. If you as God’s new prophet thought those were best described the contents of the vision you were given, they have now become the word of the Lord.
The Lord gave Ellen White vision and dreams covering a wide range of subjects. On the topic of the conflict between good and evil over human history, Ellen White was given visions and then left to study out their meaning for herself. This study came contemplating those visions, but also from the Bible and from church history. The appendices of Selected Messages, Book Three contain three letters from her son, W.C. White. In these he clearly admits that yes, at times when she thought someone else’s words best described what God had shown her in vision, she copied those words. What’s the big deal? She was the one who was given those visions in the first place. (Take careful notice how those against her fail to say anything about the Biblical way in which those visions came to her with supernatural manifestations, most notably her not breathing, sometimes for hours.)
When she spoke on what God had shown her on other topics, such as health reform, at times she was asked if she had read such and such a Health Reformer. She clearly answered that no, she purposely did not read the works of others so that no one could say that she was being influenced by another. So ultimately God was working through her and others as well. He enlightened Ellen White supernaturally and lead others to discover similar information through their life experience as medical professionals. The most significant thing about this is that since the other reformers were writing out of their own experience, they were sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Ellen White said things similar to these reformers, but without their mistakes! She was never wrong. How could that have happened if she tried, without any previous knowledge, to sort out the good from the bad of what others were saying?
Those who criticize the Adventists over doctrine should pay very close attention to what those Adventists are saying, and notice just how many Bible verses they can quote to support their beliefs. For those who believe such false doctrines as Once Saved Always Saved or the Secret Rapture, of course they're going to call Ellen White a false prophet. She isn't telling them what they want to hear. Therefore, they will tell themselves that Adventists are brainlessly following Ellen White. Stay with the Bible when you talk to an Adventist and you will see that's where our teachings come from.
#6. Christianity is all about freedom, but what kind of freedom? Do you want to be free from the law or free from sin? It has to be one or the other. Cross-reference Matthew 24:12-14 with Galatians 1:6-9 and you'll see that there are two gospels out there, one is false and one is true. Since sin is the transgression of the law according to 1 John 3:4, wouldn't freedom from sin therefore include harmony with the law? Which gospel then do you really think is true? If New Testament Christianity really has no place for the Law, then I should be able to steal the offering money in front of everyone at your church this Sunday. You already know yourself that's ridiculous.
I think the real source of the problem between you and your Adventist friend comes from a simple misunderstanding. You were once in the world, yet you saw through it's vanity and found Jesus, the only true way to Heaven. You accepted His death for your sins and came up out of the baptismal waters with a sincere desire to live a new life for Him. When your Adventist friend came to you essentially saying "hey there's still more to the experience", it baffled you. You know you were sincere, so how could you have a true experience with God and it not be the end all and be all of what is truth? Remember Proverbs 4:18. Truth is progressive, you need to be continually learning as you study God's word. The initial experience you received was from God, but it is not the end all and be all of your growth in Him, only the beginning. What your Adventist friend is sharing with you in the way of doctrine is intended to add to that growth as he or she was once where you are now.
Are you really sure your favourite minister is telling you everything you need to know? Do the 8 references to the first day of the week really outweigh the 168 references to the Seventh-day Sabbath? Are the 5 or so verses that speak as if people go to Heaven or Hell right after death being understood correctly in light of the almost 70 verses that use the concept of sleep as a metaphor for death? What then about all the verses that use words or phrases like "perish", "shall be no more", "shall be as grass", and "ashes" to describe the results of hell-fire?
Over the years I've spent a lot of time arguing doctrine with my evangelical friends. Now I see it's pointless and futile. I hope this discussion has given you some things to think about, but most of all I hope it's been done in a good way. Just please make sure you know what your Bible says. Ask God to lead you and not a human being. By understanding what your Seventh-day Adventist Church friend is trying to say, I hope you can come to peace with your friend, yourself and the Lord.
Thursday, 6 March 2008
Top 5 reasons why Jemdude is the most 80s like.
5. Jemdude subscribes to TV Land and Dejaview channels.
4. Jemdude enjoys Jem and the Holograms and other 80s cartoons.
3. Jemdude enjoys 80s music.
2. Jemdude supports saying "no" to drugs.
1. Jemdude does not change his position on what is right and wrong just because of a change in political climate.
4. Jemdude enjoys Jem and the Holograms and other 80s cartoons.
3. Jemdude enjoys 80s music.
2. Jemdude supports saying "no" to drugs.
1. Jemdude does not change his position on what is right and wrong just because of a change in political climate.
Monday, 3 March 2008
Canada raises age of consent to 16
Canada finally raises the age of consent to 16. This now gives the police the authority to protect 14 and 15 year olds from sexual exploitation from adult sexual predators. Teenagers are still allowed to have sex with each other with other persons no more than 5 years older. This basically means that teens who have sex with each other will not be criminalized since the real target is adult sexual predators.
source
news
source
news
Sunday, 2 March 2008
The Bible vs the Book of Mormon
Is the Book of Mormon comprable to the Bible? This 1 hour video will show you the truth on this matter.
video
video
An open letter to Vickilynn
Dear Vickilynn,
It appears that a conversation on our differences is not going to be possible. So I'm deleting my previous thread on you. We'll just have to accept our differences. I hope and pray that God will act good in your life and in mine. I have more important things to do than to engage in argument after argument.
I did have a bit of a grudge with you which is why I took this beyond the board. I felt that the mods were being too biased against me. Now I know that it is best that I leave there and go somewhere else since I don't really fit in over there.
I also want to put this behind me since it is not good to hold a grudge against someone for very long. We won't agree, but I hope we can still get along.
Sincerely,
Jemdude
It appears that a conversation on our differences is not going to be possible. So I'm deleting my previous thread on you. We'll just have to accept our differences. I hope and pray that God will act good in your life and in mine. I have more important things to do than to engage in argument after argument.
I did have a bit of a grudge with you which is why I took this beyond the board. I felt that the mods were being too biased against me. Now I know that it is best that I leave there and go somewhere else since I don't really fit in over there.
I also want to put this behind me since it is not good to hold a grudge against someone for very long. We won't agree, but I hope we can still get along.
Sincerely,
Jemdude
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Latimer Release after Seven Years for Killing Disabled Daughter "A Tragedy"
VANCOUVER, February 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Robert Latimer, the Saskatchewan farmer who murdered his 12 year-old daughter Tracy in 1993, has been released on day parole. His lawyer, Jason Gratl, president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, told media that Latimer is "delighted" to be released. Gratl told Canada AM that Latimer "has not wavered" from his decision to kill Tracy, who suffered from a severe form of cerebral palsy. Latimer spent seven years of a ten-year sentence in prison for the murder.
Latimer has never, in any of his trial appearances or in any venue, expressed any remorse for the killing, steadfastly maintaining instead that he acted rightly.
Jim Derksen of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities told CTV News, "I would hope that he does not continue to assert the righteousness of the crime he committed, and that no one would make the mistake of thinking that our society condones the murder of (the disabled)."
Ted Kuntz, a past-president of the Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, told CTV News that the danger of the Latimer case was that Canadians had "misplaced" their compassion onto Latimer and not with his daughter. Kuntz said his release is "a message about whether it is OK to kill your child because they have a disability."
The two conditions of his parole say that Latimer must not have "responsibility for, or make decisions for, any individuals who are severely disabled" and he must receive "psychological counselling" to "address any personal/emotional issues".
Latimer has consistently claimed that he killed his daughter, by placing her in his farm truck and connecting the exhaust pipe to the cabin, in order to relieve her suffering. Pro-life advocates, however, have argued that Latimer's interest was in relieving his own difficulties with his daughter's disability. The fact that he has become the figurehead of the Canadian euthanasia movement, they point out, has for many bolstered this conclusion.
Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) called his early release a "tragedy."
"Robert Latimer has expressed no remorse for the murder of his daughter," Hughes said. "He even asked to be released in Ottawa, which the Parole Board has complied with, purportedly so he could lobby the government to accept his point of view."
The Crown brief presented at the second trial in the case said that Tracy "enjoyed outings, one of which was to the circus, where she smiled when the horses went by."
She was receiving treatment for her disabilities and pain but the family refused to have a feeding tube connected so that pain medication could be administered more effectively. Tracy attended a school for disabled children and court documents said she responded to visits by her family, "smiling and looking happy to see them".
The brief said, "There is no dispute that through her life, Tracy at times suffered considerable pain. As well, the quality of her life was limited by her severe disability. But the pain she suffered was not unremitting, and her life had value and quality."
Since his arrest for the gassing of Tracy, Robert Latimer has been the lightening rod for euthanasia activists trying to change Canadian law to allow "mercy killing". A majority of the Canadian mainstream press has lent tacit support to this cause, consistently using terms like "mercy killing" in describing his case. Ian Mulgrew, in an editorial appearing in today's Vancouver Sun called Latimer's imprisonment, "a festering wrong".
"Latimer should have been released long ago," Mulgrew wrote.
But CLC says the release of Latimer sends an "unfortunate but clear signal that the lives of people with disabilities are not equally valued."
This signal was reinforced by comments from Latimer's lawyer who called the decision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board, one of "wisdom and compassion."
Mary Ellen Douglas, National Organizer of CLC said, "Defenseless disabled people need protection from those who would take the law into their own hands and decide who should live and who should die."
Campaign Life Coalition is urging Canadians to call their MPs and ask that protection for the vulnerable handicapped be maintained and strengthened by law.
source
Jemdude's comments:
It is wrong for Robert Latimer to kill his daughter Tracy just because she had a disability. It is also wrong that he only served 7 of the 10 year sentence. In fact, he should have gotten 25 years in jail since the murder was deliberate. This is a scary sign since it implies that people consider the lives of people with disabilities as less valuable than the so called normal people.
Latimer has never, in any of his trial appearances or in any venue, expressed any remorse for the killing, steadfastly maintaining instead that he acted rightly.
Jim Derksen of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities told CTV News, "I would hope that he does not continue to assert the righteousness of the crime he committed, and that no one would make the mistake of thinking that our society condones the murder of (the disabled)."
Ted Kuntz, a past-president of the Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, told CTV News that the danger of the Latimer case was that Canadians had "misplaced" their compassion onto Latimer and not with his daughter. Kuntz said his release is "a message about whether it is OK to kill your child because they have a disability."
The two conditions of his parole say that Latimer must not have "responsibility for, or make decisions for, any individuals who are severely disabled" and he must receive "psychological counselling" to "address any personal/emotional issues".
Latimer has consistently claimed that he killed his daughter, by placing her in his farm truck and connecting the exhaust pipe to the cabin, in order to relieve her suffering. Pro-life advocates, however, have argued that Latimer's interest was in relieving his own difficulties with his daughter's disability. The fact that he has become the figurehead of the Canadian euthanasia movement, they point out, has for many bolstered this conclusion.
Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) called his early release a "tragedy."
"Robert Latimer has expressed no remorse for the murder of his daughter," Hughes said. "He even asked to be released in Ottawa, which the Parole Board has complied with, purportedly so he could lobby the government to accept his point of view."
The Crown brief presented at the second trial in the case said that Tracy "enjoyed outings, one of which was to the circus, where she smiled when the horses went by."
She was receiving treatment for her disabilities and pain but the family refused to have a feeding tube connected so that pain medication could be administered more effectively. Tracy attended a school for disabled children and court documents said she responded to visits by her family, "smiling and looking happy to see them".
The brief said, "There is no dispute that through her life, Tracy at times suffered considerable pain. As well, the quality of her life was limited by her severe disability. But the pain she suffered was not unremitting, and her life had value and quality."
Since his arrest for the gassing of Tracy, Robert Latimer has been the lightening rod for euthanasia activists trying to change Canadian law to allow "mercy killing". A majority of the Canadian mainstream press has lent tacit support to this cause, consistently using terms like "mercy killing" in describing his case. Ian Mulgrew, in an editorial appearing in today's Vancouver Sun called Latimer's imprisonment, "a festering wrong".
"Latimer should have been released long ago," Mulgrew wrote.
But CLC says the release of Latimer sends an "unfortunate but clear signal that the lives of people with disabilities are not equally valued."
This signal was reinforced by comments from Latimer's lawyer who called the decision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board, one of "wisdom and compassion."
Mary Ellen Douglas, National Organizer of CLC said, "Defenseless disabled people need protection from those who would take the law into their own hands and decide who should live and who should die."
Campaign Life Coalition is urging Canadians to call their MPs and ask that protection for the vulnerable handicapped be maintained and strengthened by law.
source
Jemdude's comments:
It is wrong for Robert Latimer to kill his daughter Tracy just because she had a disability. It is also wrong that he only served 7 of the 10 year sentence. In fact, he should have gotten 25 years in jail since the murder was deliberate. This is a scary sign since it implies that people consider the lives of people with disabilities as less valuable than the so called normal people.
Saturday, 23 February 2008
Thursday, 14 February 2008
Top "Gay" Organization Comes Clean: "HIV is a gay disease."
WASHINGTON, February 14, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a public statement last Friday, Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, rattled the homosexual activist community by joining the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pro-family organizations and a growing number of homosexual activists willing to admit that homosexual behavior is both extremely high-risk and primarily responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in the U.S.
Addressing the topic of AIDS, Foreman drastically deviated from the "gay" lobby's party line by admitting, "Internally, when these numbers come out, the 'established' gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn't our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that."
A little over a year ago, Lorri Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles-based Gay and Lesbian Center, similarly shocked the "gay" community by stating that, "HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it."
Foreman's admission comes on the heels of a letter from Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America's (CWA) Policy Director for Cultural Issues, inviting Foreman and other homosexual activists to work together in discouraging homosexuals from engaging in the high-risk behaviors researchers recently determined are responsible for the epidemic spread of a potentially deadly strain of staph infection among certain segments of the "gay" community. The CDC has acknowledged that many of those same high-risk behaviors, such as male-male anal sex, are chiefly responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS.
Matt Barber addressed Foreman's admission: "It's extremely encouraging to see Matt Foreman, a homosexual activist who has for so long been in denial about the dangers of the lifestyle he has promoted, publicly coming to terms with the undeniable perils of that lifestyle.
"I only hope he will now stop promoting homosexual conduct and push for other liberal elites, especially those running our public schools, to do the same. Educators must truthfully address the 'gay' lifestyle's potentially deadly consequences.
"It's criminally reckless for the National Education Association and liberal educators to put political correctness and a deceptive political agenda above the lives, health and well-being of America's children. The evidence is there for all to see. 'Gayness' is not about 'who you are,' it's about 'what you do.' The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has now, in effect, acknowledged that reality. Their honesty is refreshing and unexpected," concluded Barber.
source
Jemdude's comments:
Looks like certain people who claim "I don't believe you" will now have to eat their words now that major people in the gay community admit that HIV/AIDS is largely their problem.
I pray that God will free them from this lifestyle since practising it will lead to bad health and even death.
Addressing the topic of AIDS, Foreman drastically deviated from the "gay" lobby's party line by admitting, "Internally, when these numbers come out, the 'established' gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn't our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that."
A little over a year ago, Lorri Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles-based Gay and Lesbian Center, similarly shocked the "gay" community by stating that, "HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it."
Foreman's admission comes on the heels of a letter from Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America's (CWA) Policy Director for Cultural Issues, inviting Foreman and other homosexual activists to work together in discouraging homosexuals from engaging in the high-risk behaviors researchers recently determined are responsible for the epidemic spread of a potentially deadly strain of staph infection among certain segments of the "gay" community. The CDC has acknowledged that many of those same high-risk behaviors, such as male-male anal sex, are chiefly responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS.
Matt Barber addressed Foreman's admission: "It's extremely encouraging to see Matt Foreman, a homosexual activist who has for so long been in denial about the dangers of the lifestyle he has promoted, publicly coming to terms with the undeniable perils of that lifestyle.
"I only hope he will now stop promoting homosexual conduct and push for other liberal elites, especially those running our public schools, to do the same. Educators must truthfully address the 'gay' lifestyle's potentially deadly consequences.
"It's criminally reckless for the National Education Association and liberal educators to put political correctness and a deceptive political agenda above the lives, health and well-being of America's children. The evidence is there for all to see. 'Gayness' is not about 'who you are,' it's about 'what you do.' The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has now, in effect, acknowledged that reality. Their honesty is refreshing and unexpected," concluded Barber.
source
Jemdude's comments:
Looks like certain people who claim "I don't believe you" will now have to eat their words now that major people in the gay community admit that HIV/AIDS is largely their problem.
I pray that God will free them from this lifestyle since practising it will lead to bad health and even death.