GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
God's physical being????   rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

Yes we know, you already know exactly what God is, therefore any suggestion at a physical manifestation is ridiculous to your superiorly enlightened mind. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. It is this world, and everything we perceive as real in and of it that is passing away, not the spiritual and eternal truths of scripture which posses a reality we do not yet even comprehend. Humanities confidence in itself does nothing but dwarf our scope and intellect. When the sky is rolled back like a scroll, and we see God and His holy angels as they are, then and only then will we be confronted with reality. We will come to understand that that which is spiritual is very real and filled with substance and literal being. We are what is passing away, we are the puff of smoke.

Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

1 Cor 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Christian Politics Forum / Re: He gave it a good fight
« Last post by TonkaTim on Today at 10:08:24 »
Congress had the votes to override his veto.

If so,then why not?
The blame would have been on the swamp.

When he hung Andrew Jackson's portrait up in the Oval Office I hoped that was an indicator he would stand firm like Jackson. Jackson was not afraid to use the Veto Pen or stand firm on principle.

I honestly hope he does well for the sake of the people. But if budget busting & his SCOTUS pick are an indication.... well, in reality he may be just another swamp monster.
The church I used to attend, which my wife still attends, never went celebration and would today probably still be considered somewhat conservative. Nevertheless, the distinctness of our three angels' messages and other doctrines have been virtually ignored from the pulpit for well over a decade now. Such significant events as the Pope of Rome addressing the congress of the United States pass by without so much as a mention from the pulpit. Biblical prophecy has been all but abandoned over this same period of time, with nothing but statements tending towards its irrelevance by the previous pastor of many a year. Events of history fully explained by the spirit of prophecy were often spoken of as that which we can only speculate upon, and the logical conclusion of many a statement from the pulpit smacked directly against historical SDA doctrine and belief. These problems go much deeper than the failed celebration movement within the SDA church.

To be fair, my wife did say that last Sabbath there was a good sermon about the Sanctuary. Its about time. Nevertheless, she was unsure about a few statements, and somewhat taken aback by a picture and title of one slide on the screen behind the pastor during the presentation. The title was something like THE SANCTUARY - THE BEAUTIFUL BASILICA OF GOD. In any case, the sanctuary was referred to as a basilica.


The above link is to an online Catholic Encyclopedia, from which the below quote is taken. All emphasis in the quote is mine.

"Basilica" in the canonical sense

Basilica, as a term used by canon lawyers and liturgists, is a title assigned by formal concession or immemorial custom to certain more important churches, in virtue of which they enjoy privileges of an honorific character which are not always very clearly defined. Basilicas in this sense are divided into two classes, the greater or patriarchal, and the lesser, basilicas.

Major basilicas

To the former class belong primarily those four great churches of Rome (St. Peter's, St. John Lateran, St. Mary Major, and St. Paul-without-the-Walls), which among other distinctions have a special "holy door" and to which a visit is always prescribed as one of the conditions for gaining the Roman Jubilee. They are also called patriarchal basilicas, seemingly as representative of the great ecclesiastical provinces of the world thus symbolically united in the heart of Christendom.

St. John Lateran is the cathedral of the pope, the Patriarch of the West.
St. Peter's is assigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople,
St. Paul's to the Patriarch of Alexandria,
St. Mary Major to the Patriarch of Antioch.
St. Lawrence-outside-the-Walls is also reckoned as a greater basilica because it is specially attributed to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Moreover, a few other churches, notably that of St. Francis at Assisi and that of the Portiuncula, have also received the privilege of ranking as patriarchal basilicas. As such they possess a papal throne and an altar at which none may say Mass except by the pope's permission.

Minor basilicas

The lesser basilicas are much more numerous, including nine or ten different churches in Rome, and a number of others, such as the Basilica of the Grotto at Lourdes, the votive Church of the Sacred Heart at Montmartre, the Church of Marienthal in Alsace, etc. There has been a pronounced tendency of late years to add to their number. Thus the "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" for 1909 contain six, and the "Acta" for 1911 eight, such concessions.

In the Brief of erection the pope declares:

We, by our apostolic authority . . . erect (such and such a church) to the dignity of a lesser basilica and bestow upon it all the privileges which belong to the lesser basilicas of this our own cherished city.

These "privileges", besides conferring a certain precedence before other churches (not, however, before the cathedral of any locality), include the right of the conopaeum, the bell, and the cappa magna. The conopaeum is a sort of umbrella (also called papilio, sinicchio, etc.), which together with the bell is carried processionally at the head of the clergy on state occasions. The cappa magna is worn by the canons or members of the collegiate chapter, if seculars, when assisting at Office. The form of the conopaeum, which is of red and yellow silk, is well shown in the arms of the cardinal camerlengo (see vol. VII, p. 242, coloured plate) over the cross keys.


The following quote is from the link above, all emphasis mine.

What is a Basilica?

The title dates back to the early Greek and Roman times and referred to a type of public building. In the 4th century, Basilicas began to be used as places of worship. It was during this time that construction of the greatest basilicas of Rome were started. Today, the term Basilica is a special designation given by the Holy Father to certain churches because of their antiquity, dignity, historical importance or significance as a place of worship.
Christian Politics Forum / Re: He gave it a good fight
« Last post by mommydi on Today at 09:47:57 »
Oh, Mexico will pay, certainly NOT with a check mailed to the US, but yes, they WILL pay. Or more accurately RE-Pay us.

Exactly. +1
Christian Politics Forum / Re: He gave it a good fight
« Last post by mommydi on Today at 09:40:10 »
+1 for your post, 4WD.

Jaime, I have the feeling you're right about the condition of our military and us not knowing what's getting ready to happen and how we're not prepared. We'll have to wait and see.
Christian Politics Forum / Re: He gave it a good fight
« Last post by mommydi on Today at 09:29:36 »
Crickets from the train riders?


Oh, I'm definitely still on the Trump train!  ::nodding::

From the beginning, I said he'd do things I don't like and I didn't like it when he signed the omnibus bill yesterday.

He had his hands tied. Sure, he could have vetoed it, but what would have happened next? Congress would then present him with a decent bill? Nope. Congress had the votes to override his veto. The majority of Congress do not want him or his/our agenda.

I'm hearing talk of other interesting things -

Mattis stood beside him during the presser on the bill. POTUS signing that bill definitely had something to do with military and our national security. There's talk of Mattis planning on using part of that increased military spending to build the wall, using the Army Corps of Engineers.

My reaction to this is to sit back and see how it pans out -
Slow to anger, slow to speak thing.

Christian Politics Forum / Re: He gave it a good fight
« Last post by Jaime on Today at 09:23:49 »
I’m guessing something awfully critical in military preparedness drove this. Wouldn’t be surprised if it didn’t involve North Korea. Otherwise even Baron Trump would have known this was a disaster.

The complicit doofi are are the GOP congress, but we knew THEY were capable of this.
Prayer Requests Online and Praise Reports / Re: Church membership.
« Last post by geronimo on Today at 09:20:13 »
Sounds as if you have a great opportunity to be a positive influence to more people than if you were confined to one group. Church attendance is not a category that salvation is based on, I don't believe. Unless the leaders of one of the churches objects to your attending both places, I wouldn't worry about it. And, if one objects, it might be the one you eliminate. It is for freedom that Christ has set you free. It sounds to me like you are adding to both churches with your presence. Spread the joy, and keep on smiling. IMO.
 Continued blessings.
Christian Politics Forum / Re: He gave it a good fight
« Last post by 4WD on Today at 09:19:21 »
The problem is that with few exceptions, it seems that most Republicans, as well as all Democrats, in leadership positions in government generally, but certainly the federal government, are socialists.  The following is from DiLorenzo, Thomas. The Problem with Socialism, Regnery Publishing.    It is a very interesting assessment.

We must forget (or be oblivious to) an awful lot of not-so-ancient history to have a “favorable” view of socialism. We must be unaware of how it is a form of economic poison that destroys prosperity and is the biggest generator of poverty the world has ever known. In the early twentieth century it turned Ukraine from “the breadbasket of Europe” to a desolate, barren land where the people could hardly feed themselves let alone export food to anyone else in just a few years. It had the same effect all throughout the world in countries that adopted socialized agriculture.

When the Chilean government adopted socialism in the early 1970s and nationalized industries and farms, the economy ground to a halt and the government did what all socialist governments eventually do to bail themselves out: it printed massive amounts of money to attempt to keep the economy—which it had all but destroyed—going. The result was that the cost of living rose by 746 percent (the annual inflation rate); unemployment was sky high; and the government was eventually replaced in a coup by a repressive regime.

The Soviet economy was so dysfunctional, thanks to seventy years of socialism, that by the time the entire system collapsed in the late 1980s it was most probably only about 5 percent of the size of the U.S. economy according to Dr. Yuri Maltsev, an American economics professor who was an advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev, the last president of the Soviet Union. This was despite the Soviet Union’s vast natural resources, unrivaled by any other country or political empire. Soviet socialism never produced a single product that succeeded in international competition, with the possible exception of Russian caviar which comes from a fish (the sturgeon), not a factory. All of the socialist “satellite” countries of the Soviet Union suffered a similar economic fate, from Romania, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany to Cuba and beyond. In socialist country after socialist country, the common people were equal in their poverty while the political elite lived privileged lives. The entire world celebrated the demise of Soviet socialism, but nowhere was the celebration as great as among the millions of surviving victims of socialism who lived under the boot of the Soviet empire.

Great Britain adopted its brand of “democratic” socialism, known as “Fabian socialism,” after World War II as it nationalized many key industries, imposed very high rates of taxation, established a massive welfare state, and adopted socialized medicine and government-funded pensions. Britain had been the wealthiest country in the world up to the beginning of World War I, so it was able to live off of the “capital” created by previous generations of British entrepreneurs for a while. But within twenty years the entire world was talking about “the British disease,” a phrase that was used to describe the gross inefficiency of all those socialist, government-run monopolies in the British steel, automobile, telephone, electric, and other industries.

By the 1970s the British had had enough. After thirty years of Fabian socialism, they elected Margaret Thatcher prime minister. A student of Friedrich Hayek and other free-market economists, she privatized many of Britain’s nationalized industries. For decades, Great Britain had been falling behind other European democracies in terms of per-capita income. That trend was reversed by Thatcher’s desocialization programs.

Another example of an economic catastrophe caused by the adoption of “democratic” socialism is the country of Argentina, which embraced socialism in the late 1940s during the Juan Perón regime. Perón restricted international trade, imposed wage-and-price controls, seized private property, nationalized some industries, and spent lavishly, much of which was financed by the government simply printing more money. The predictable result was economic ruination and hyperinflation that led to Perón’s ouster in 1955 by military coup. Argentina, however, remained socialist. Its economy continued to stagnate and, several coups later, by the late 1980s, it was suffering from 12,000 percent inflation from years of trying to cover up the failures of socialism by printing money to pay for all the socialist programs.

In 2001 Argentina defaulted on its obligations to foreign lenders in the then-largest public default in history. It defaulted again in 2014. Argentina was once the world’s tenth-largest economy, but by 2016 it was barely ahead of Kazakhstan and Equatorial Guinea.10 India was once one of the wealthiest countries on earth. Its textile industry was the envy of the world; it had sophisticated financial markets, many talented entrepreneurs, millions of acres of fertile farmland, and plenty of extravagant wealth. When it gained independence from Britain in 1947, it was no longer one of the richest nations on earth, but it inherited an infrastructure of railroads and schools and ports and parliamentary institutions and law, and the lingua franca of English. Unfortunately, in rebellion against the traditions of its “capitalist-imperialist” masters (but in accord with intellectual fashion), it adopted a home-grown version of Soviet-style central economic planning. Under Prime Minister Nehru and his top economic planning minister, Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis, India adopted a series of “Five-Year Plans” modeled after the notoriously failed Soviet Five-Year Plans. The Marxist economic model that was used to justify these “plans” was one that was first developed by a Soviet economist named G.A. Feldman. It eventually came to be known as the “Feldman-Mahalanobis model” for a socialist, centrally planned economy.11 It was no more successful in India than it was in the Soviet Union as India, after independence, became synonymous with “poverty.” In the 1980s, Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi essentially gave up on socialism and cut taxes and deregulated and privatized industries. The result was that India’s economy finally became revitalized and started to create wider prosperity.

Unfortunately, I think that just as has been the case with other socialist experiments, extensive failure of the present system will be needed to really turn things around.  And that may be coming sooner than most expect.
Christian Politics Forum / Re: He gave it a good fight
« Last post by Texas Conservative on Today at 08:59:16 »
Crickets from the train riders?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10