Sabbath: What is it, when is it, and how to honor it.

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, ReverendDaveULC said:

Again, it is just a message.

I know it probably isnt how you mean it, but that seems kind of callous. I mean, if a message is a warning and/or a promise, and important, doesn't it kind of matter how it is received? For God so loved the world that he didn't really care what happened to anybody?

[ReverendDaveULC]

5 minutes ago, mererdog said:

I know it probably isnt how you mean it, but that seems kind of callous. I mean, if a message is a warning and/or a promise, and important, doesn't it kind of matter how it is received? For God so loved the world that he didn't really care what happened to anybody?

No matter how friendly I attempt to be and no matter how non judgemental my response is someone always seems to take it out of context. I was being extremely friendly and you call me callous. Wow. All I can say is wow. Everything I say seems to offends somebody so I appolozize to everybody. There, happy?

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, ReverendDaveULC said:

 Everything I say seems to offends somebody so I apologize to everybody. There, happy?

 

Nothing you wrote was offensive, its just that Atheist and Agnostics expect some tangible proof of what you believe to be true. If you told them that you drive a red Jaguar, they would expect a picture of the car with you standing next to it with the title in hand. "Prove it" is how they roll ... So don't be discouraged, they've just chosen not to believe what you've decided is true. So for some members, discussing the bible is tantamount to discussing Little Red Riding Hood, its just a fairy tale. But I'm sure you'd get a high five on your initial post if there were any Seventh-day Adventists here . 

[ReverendDaveULC]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

Nothing you wrote was offensive, its just that Atheist and Agnostics expect some tangible proof of what you believe to be true. If you told them that you drive a red Jaguar, they would expect a picture of the car with you standing next to it with the title in hand. "Prove it" is how they roll ... So don't be discouraged, they've just chosen not to believe what you've decided is true. So for some members, discussing the bible is tantamount to discussing Little Red Riding Hood, its just a fairy tale. But I'm sure you'd get a high five on your initial post if there were any Seventh-day Adventists here . 

👍

[cuchulain]

16 hours ago, ReverendDaveULC said:

I believe the sermon in question that Fred was refering too was the one about the sabbath, which quotes much scripture and refers to 1 God, as the title of the forum posted in suggests. In case you didnt know the meaning of the word monotheistic it means 

relating to or characterized by the belief that there is only one God.

"a monotheistic religion". So as you had suggested I placed my Sermon into a forum title more appropriate as you pointed out to me. Yet, you still seem to have a problem with it and are also grouping 2 different discussions into one, my first post, and my second. You all have the to voice your opinion, it is your opinion. I don't need to reread the terms. By my original post it followed the guidelines. It followed philosophywhich by definition means:

1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

   • a particular system of philosophical thought.

     plural noun: philosophies

     "Schopenhauer’s philosophy"
   • the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.

     "the philosophy of science"

     synonyms:

     thinking, thought, reasoning "the philosophy of Aristotle"

And it also met the criteria of theory which by definition means:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

"Darwin's theory of evolution"

synonyms:

hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More

• a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.

  "a theory of education"
• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.

   it was not to disparge but to explain a theory, one that many bible scholars have aggreed with. Did ya read what I said? Not bible believers, bible scholars, ones who study the bible. It was also backed up by history, history that is not very well known unlike the Jewish holicaust that everyone has heard about. You just want to make a big stink of it because you dont agree with it. Im not asking you to agree with it, but much of what I said was and is historical fact mixed with some philsophical theory. So my posting was legit where I had posted it but in trying to keep the peace i moved my next post elswhere and yet you still have a problem with it. So mabe we did get off on the wrong feet but can you much blame me. I came here with messages of peace and have been greeted by opression, negativity and rudeness by people here. Now before you get all uppity I want refering to you particularly on all counts. You have to admit some of Jonathans comment were quite rude.So much for we are all children of the same universe. Yes, only if we be quiet and sit in the corner maybe but thats not me. Since I have been here i have posted 2 posts and have not commented on or criticted anyone elses posts but yet mine are met with with pure opposition. I am just calling you all out on it. If that makes me seem weakskinned or whathaveyou then again thats your opinion but I can assure you my faith is much stronger than you may perceive and nothing that any of you can say will actually offend or hurt my feelings. As you have stated before, maybe things are lost in text or not comminicated correctly but I can assure you that you do not offend me in the least. I just know when I'm banging my head up against a brick wall. It does absolutely no good at all and this bickering as Fred called it is just that; beating my head against the wall because you are not seeking answers, your seeking to have a debate. 

Those two other posts you mentioned?  Simply put, I couldn't figure out what that guy was trying to say.  How do you respond to someone's message if you can't decipher it?  I am not saying it was his fault, my eyes kept skipping around with all those ...'s thrown in the middle of everything, and it seemed to be very disjointed to me.  It's probably my failing for not taking the time to interpret it.

 

But either way, I am allowed to choose what I wish to respond to on this forum, yes?  Do you honestly take offense that I don't respond to EVERYTHING?  That seems a little hypercritical to me.  The other post?  The one you said Fred was referencing?  That's the one I was primarily referencing as well.  And you even have a moderator on that page telling you the exact same thing I advised.  And on that post, where I suggested it would be better in the pulpit section?  You took offense, obviously, that I suggested such a thing.  But hey, I'll let it go.  Knock yourself out with your posts, have fun.  I will do the same.

[ReverendDaveULC]

28 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Those two other posts you mentioned?  Simply put, I couldn't figure out what that guy was trying to say.  How do you respond to someone's message if you can't decipher it?  I am not saying it was his fault, my eyes kept skipping around with all those ...'s thrown in the middle of everything, and it seemed to be very disjointed to me.  It's probably my failing for not taking the time to interpret it.

 

But either way, I am allowed to choose what I wish to respond to on this forum, yes?  Do you honestly take offense that I don't respond to EVERYTHING?  That seems a little hypercritical to me.  The other post?  The one you said Fred was referencing?  That's the one I was primarily referencing as well.  And you even have a moderator on that page telling you the exact same thing I advised.  And on that post, where I suggested it would be better in the pulpit section?  You took offense, obviously, that I suggested such a thing.  But hey, I'll let it go.  Knock yourself out with your posts, have fun.  I will do the same.

Once again you are telling me that I took offense. Im telling you I take no offense to anything you have to say. Your opinion is your opinion and it is just that, an opinion. As I said before and have tried to expalin by showing you in black and white by definition that my posts were located properly bit even with PROOF staring you in the face you still choose to tell me its not fitted there. If I had access to the pulpit section I would have posted there but I did not so I made and educated decision based on dictionary definition of the words used to describe the forums. No matter what I do or say you will find faults with it. Im not sure why, or why you think I take offense or consider you hostile but again I can assure you that Im not but if it make you feel better to label me and tell me and others how you think Im feeling then have at it brother.

[mererdog]

11 hours ago, ReverendDaveULC said:

I was being extremely friendly and you call me callous.

I didn't call you callous. I was talking about what you said, not who you are. 

 

You told us that eternity is a big deal. You told us that the choices we make today effect how we spend eternity. This comminicates the message "I care about what happens to you."

You then told us it was "just a message" and that we could take it or leave it. This communicates the message "I don't care about you."

It is my belief that you did not intentionally imply that you don't care about us. So I was trying to warn you about how the unintentional message was tainting your intentional message. I did that because I care about you, and I want you to be able to effectively do the things you want to do. Ironically enough, I was clearly not very effective in delivering my intended message. So I'm sorry if I upset you with my clumsy attempt.

Edited March 16, 2018 by mererdog

[Taliesin2]

Quote

    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2)And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3)And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4)And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5)And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Folks, that is just overwhelming to me. Can you picture that project in your mind. That's a huge undertaking in itself. Creating the heaven, earth, day and night, and the water. By the way, this was just the first day. So, in today's understanding God went to work Monday morning, "hypothetically speaking" and by the time he clocked out at 5:00 or so he had done all these things. That's alot of work in just one day.

 

ReverendDaveULC- Thank you for a thought provoking post of a sermon. But May I ask one favor? Can you mark the scripture by italics? Or barring that, mark your words by putting them in either italics or in bold text? I ask for this favor because the text of scripture and your thoughts are running together.

 

Thank you. And have a Blessed day....

Edited March 16, 2018 by Taliesin2

[ReverendDaveULC]

1 hour ago, Taliesin2 said:

 

ReverendDaveULC- Thank you for a thought provoking post of a sermon. But May I ask one favor? Can you mark the scripture by italics? Or barring that, mark your words by putting them in either italics or in bold text? I ask for this favor because the text of scripture and your thoughts are running together.

 

Thank you. And have a Blessed day....

Yes sir, I can see where that can get confusing. I will do that in the future. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You have a Blessed day as well.