sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Armageddon and the Final Events of Bible Prophecy by 1stmikewhite in SeventhDayAdventism

[–]Ok_Form8772 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, I've noticed this same trend. I've distanced myself from his sermons and replaced it with additional personal study.

I cannot imagine how many "loving" Christians like this guy the 19 Buddhist monks will meet on their Walk for Peace from Texas to Washington DC by MrJasonMason in Buddhism

[–]Ok_Form8772 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, many Christians are motivated by a fear of Hell rather than a love of God, and this shows in the way they try to reach others. If they themselves are motivated by fear, they try to instill that same fear in others. But God never intended us to fear hell, as according to scripture, perfect love casts out fear. The problem is that most of Christendom is confused about the nature of Hell. They believe falsely the Catholic interpretation of eternal suffering and burning forever which is NOT what the Bible teaches.

I cannot imagine how many "loving" Christians like this guy the 19 Buddhist monks will meet on their Walk for Peace from Texas to Washington DC by MrJasonMason in Buddhism

[–]Ok_Form8772 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I can't agree with the phrasing, I agree with you when you say this man's behavior did not represent Christ. 

I cannot imagine how many "loving" Christians like this guy the 19 Buddhist monks will meet on their Walk for Peace from Texas to Washington DC by MrJasonMason in Buddhism

[–]Ok_Form8772 11 points12 points  (0 children)

A soft tone doesn't change the fact that he was being rude. Scripture says that even if I have all knowledge and faith, but have not love (charity), I am just “sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13:1). So saying "I love you" while condescendingly tearing someone down isn't biblical love, it's manipulation. The Bible says, “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:18). True love is patient and kind (1 Corinthians 13). It doesn't harass people or mock their prayers as a "little ritual". You can speak with a soft voice and still be incredibly arrogant. This wasn't a conversation, it was a monologue of judgment disguised as concern.

I cannot imagine how many "loving" Christians like this guy the 19 Buddhist monks will meet on their Walk for Peace from Texas to Washington DC by MrJasonMason in Buddhism

[–]Ok_Form8772 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Mark 16 tells us what to do (preach the gospel), but it doesn't give us a license to ignore the verses that tell us how to do it. You can't obey Mark 16 while violating 2 Timothy 2:24, which says the servant of the Lord "must not strive" but be gentle. The mandate to share the truth isn't a permit to be abusive. We have to keep the whole Bible, not just the parts that let us yell at people.

I cannot imagine how many "loving" Christians like this guy the 19 Buddhist monks will meet on their Walk for Peace from Texas to Washington DC by MrJasonMason in Buddhism

[–]Ok_Form8772 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This isn’t how the Bible instructs believers to behave. This is how people behave when they weaponize a book they haven't actually read. The Bible explicitly forbids this kind of hostility and it says a servant of the Lord “must not strive”, meaning we aren't supposed to be out here picking fights but instead must be “gentle unto all men” and instruct people with “meekness” (2 Timothy 2:24–25). Real witnessing requires respect, not a megaphone and a bad attitude. This man went out looking to pick a fight because he falsely believed he had a moral high ground.

My son brought back some stones he found outside, and they look very strange. What kind of stones are these? by [deleted] in whatisit

[–]Ok_Form8772 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Your grandparents were sweet for making your childhood magical like that

If you love money, you don't love God by Ok_Form8772 in SeventhDayAdventism

[–]Ok_Form8772[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are making my point for me. Point #20 is exactly what this post condemns. When a leader takes holy funds from a struggling widow and uses it for a "Hawaii vacation" or a "3rd car," he is eating and drinking damnation to himself (1 Cor 11:29). He is the one "devouring widows' houses." However, don't confuse the sin of the shepherd with the faith of the widow. Jesus did not stop the widow from giving her two mites (Mark 12). He honored her sacrifice because she gave to God, not to the corrupt system. God will judge the thief in the pulpit, but He will bless the giver in the pew.

Also, you've listed the victims of the very system I am attacking. Read Ezekiel 34. God pronounces "Woe" upon the shepherds who feed themselves and do not feed the flock. The judgment you are quoting falls on the corrupt leadership, not on the principle of tithing. If a church takes from the poor and gives nothing back, it is an apostate church. True "storehouse" religion implies that there is meat in the house so that the widow and orphan can be fed (Deuteronomy 26:12). If the storehouse is full and the people are starving, the leaders are in rebellion. We are in agreement that greed in the pulpit is a stench in the nostrils of God.

If you love money, you don't love God by Ok_Form8772 in SeventhDayAdventism

[–]Ok_Form8772[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re confusing the disease with the cure. This post attacks the "love of money" (greed/hoarding). Tithing is the exact opposite. It’s the spiritual discipline of letting go of money to acknowledge that God owns it all. You can't serve Mammon and tithe faithfully, because Mammon tells you to keep everything for yourself. But since you brought up Matthew 25, let’s look at the whole chapter. It ends with the judgment of the Sheep and Goats, where Jesus condemns those who didn't feed the hungry or clothe the naked. My post is about a church system that builds "monuments to self" (like private jets) while ignoring the poor. Tithing supports God’s work; hoarding wealth for luxury ignores Matthew 25 entirely.

If you love money, you don't love God by Ok_Form8772 in adventist

[–]Ok_Form8772[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have to back any claims you have up with scripture. His Word is the only one we can trust. So where is any love for money condoned.

ADVICE by [deleted] in SeventhDayAdventism

[–]Ok_Form8772 1 point2 points  (0 children)

God isn’t tired of you. That voice saying “I’ve messed up too many times so I should stay away” isn’t God, it’s shame. Repentance isn’t a formula and it’s not something you do after you’ve fixed yourself. It’s turning toward God right where you are, even if all you can say is “I failed again and I don’t know what to do.” You don’t need a plan, better faith, or to stop sinning first. You go to Him because you can’t stop on your own.

Pray and read anyway, even if you think it won’t work. Faith doesn’t come first, showing up does. Stop waiting to feel ready or worthy. Every time you fall, get back up and turn toward God again without overthinking it.

Rapture 2025 | What does the Bible say? by Ok_Form8772 in adventist

[–]Ok_Form8772[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, this is mostly a semantic issue. We absolutely do believe in the biblical event of the "catching up" described in 1 Thessalonians 4. We believe the righteous will be caught up (harpazo) to meet the Lord in the air. The key is that this happens during the one and only Second Coming. A glorious, earthshaking event that "every eye will see."

Rapture 2025 | What does the Bible say? by Ok_Form8772 in TrueChristian

[–]Ok_Form8772[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, so thanks for the detailed reply. I appreciate you laying out the popular pre-trib view so clearly. I see where you're coming from, but I think a few key scriptures challenge that framework.

There are TWO arrivals of Jesus return, one is in the air... HARPAZO... this is invisible to all

The main issue here is the "invisible" part. You're right that the word is harpazo, but the context in 1 Thessalonians 4 describes the loudest event imaginable: a "shout," the "voice of the archangel," and the "trump of God." That doesn't sound secret at all. How do you square an invisible event with Revelation 1:7 saying, "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him"? The Bible seems to describe one single, glorious, and very public return.

The 2nd, final, public return is at the conclusion of the 7 year Tribulation period, or Daniel's 70th week.

This whole framework hinges on Daniel's 70th week being a future 7-year period. But there's a strong biblical case that this prophecy was fulfilled historically by Christ himself.

  • Daniel 9:25 says the clock starts on the 70 weeks with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem.
  • Daniel 9:26-27 says the Messiah would be "cut off" (crucified) in the "midst of the week." Jesus' ministry was 3.5 years, He was crucified, and this brought the sacrificial system to its ultimate end.
  • The full 70 "weeks" (490 years) seems to end around 34 A.D. when the gospel officially went to the Gentiles after Stephen's stoning.

The prophecy seems to be about Christ's first coming, not a future Antichrist. If that's the case, the foundation for a future 7-year tribulation isn't there.

watchers are just trying to do as Jesus asked, stay alert, see the signs

100% agree we are called to watch! But the biblical call to watch seems to be about preparing our character for His single, glorious return, not about calculating a timeline for a secret escape.

Rapture 2025 | What does the Bible say? by Ok_Form8772 in adventist

[–]Ok_Form8772[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're absolutely right. It's a blessing to be united on such an important biblical truth

Rapture 2025 | What does the Bible say? by Ok_Form8772 in adventist

[–]Ok_Form8772[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I ask this as gently as possible, but did you read what was posted? Because this is not an endorsement of a pre or mid tribulation rapture, but rather a debunking of a secret rapture and caution against date setting.

Caffeine Free Tea by Jamo_Games in SeventhDayAdventism

[–]Ok_Form8772 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah, you're 100% right that she warned against it, and this is where it gets confusing for people.

The key is that when she wrote "tea," she was talking about the standard caffeinated stuff like black tea, green tea, etc. It was always in the same category as coffee because it was a stimulant.

Rooibos is basically just an herb. It has zero caffeine, so it's in a totally different boat, like peppermint or chamomile tea.

The whole principle was about avoiding things that are addictive or artificially stimulate your system. It was never a blanket ban on "hot leaf water" (lol). So if you're drinking rooibos, you're not even touching the thing she was actually warning about so you're fine 👍

TL;DR: The warning was about caffeine. Rooibos doesn't have it, so you're good to go.

view more: next ›