HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
Ike, Andrew, Trainor, ekoorb1030, jibb555
1326 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,215
Members1,326
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
asygo 29
Rick H 24
kland 16
November
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Member Spotlight
asygo
asygo
California, USA
Posts: 5,636
Joined: February 2006
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
7 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, Daryl, daylily, TheophilusOne, 2 invisible), 2,482 guests, and 13 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 7 of 27 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 26 27
Re: Can the Law save us? [Re: Mountain Man] #100868
07/13/08 12:52 AM
07/13/08 12:52 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
You were, I felt, being hard on Scott. I was trying to bring to your attention, in a subtle way, that you were doing the same thing you were accusing Scott of. All I said was, "This is sarcastic" to your phrase "Thank you for stating the obvious." I didn't say you were sarcastic. I said the phrase was. Now it may be possible for one to use a sarcastic phrase non-sarcastically, but that wouldn't change the fact that the phrase is sarcastic, which is what I wrote.

The Googled the phrase and found roughly 7,000 hits. You say the phrase is "often" sarcastic. Can you find one time from these 7,000 hits that is not sarcastic? If not, I would think this would be sufficient to establish the point that the phrase is sarcastic. Do you agree?

I don't believe I said I didn't believe you. I don't believe I made an assessment regarding you, other than I thought it was more likely that you were self-deceived than that you were lying. I wouldn't have offered this one if I weren't forced into it.

If you can establish that I stated I didn't believe you, I will apologize for that.

Regarding your request that I apologize for assuming that you are more likely self-decieved than a liar, I apologize for making this assumption.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Can the Law save us? [Re: Tom] #100882
07/13/08 05:35 PM
07/13/08 05:35 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Tom, it is never a positive thing for you to analyze, assess, label, or critique my posts. It is not your responsibility to tell me my post wasn't logical or wasn't accurate or wasn't whatever. So please refrain from doing so in the future.

You had every right to question whether or not the phrase in question was sarcastic. I appreciate any effort you make to ensure our discussions are Christlike. However, the instant I explained it wasn't posted in sarcasm, it was your privilege to accept my explanation and drop it.

Above you wrote, "Regarding your request that I apologize for assuming that you are more likely self-decieved than a liar, I apologize for making this assumption." Thank you. Apology accepted.

One of the things that hurt the most was the following thing you posted: "What I'm curious about is if the fact that you think you are morally perfect means you think you are unable to say something sarcastic? Therefore anything you say must not be sarcastic, regardless of how sarcastic it sounds?" Please avoid these kinds of comments in the future. Thank you.

Re: Can the Law save us? [Re: Mountain Man] #100883
07/13/08 06:16 PM
07/13/08 06:16 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
 Quote:
Tom, it is never a positive thing for you to analyze, assess, label, or critique my posts.


Why is it a positive thing for you to analyze, assess, label, or critique Scott's posts? Or mine?

I don't understand why you are so upset over the simple statement "This is sarcastic" to the use of the phrase "Thank you for stating the obvious." It doesn't seem to me this was at all unreasonable on my part. I am perfectly willing for any of the moderators to weigh in on this.

I understand there is a "report the post" feature. Perhaps that would be the way to go for either of us if we have something to say about someone's posts. Or sent a PM. I certainly wouldn't have made the comment I did if I would have thought it would cause you to react this way.

 Quote:
It is not your responsibility to tell me my post wasn't logical or wasn't accurate or wasn't whatever. So please refrain from doing so in the future.


If we're discussing a subject, and you say something which is illogical or inaccurate, what should I do? I don't see how to make progress in a discussion unless these types of issues are discussed. But I'm open to suggestions. What do you suggest?

 Quote:
You had every right to question whether or not the phrase in question was sarcastic. I appreciate any effort you make to ensure our discussions are Christlike. However, the instant I explained it wasn't posted in sarcasm, it was your privilege to accept my explanation and drop it.


MM, your asserting the phrase is not sarcastic does not make it such. I have pointed out there are 7,000 uses of this phrase listed by Google. If you can find a single instance where the phrase is not being used as sarcasm, that would help support your contention that the phrase is not necessarily sarcastic.

Please bear in mind that we are discussing the phrase itself, not your motivation in using it.

 Quote:
Above you wrote, "Regarding your request that I apologize for assuming that you are more likely self-decieved than a liar, I apologize for making this assumption." Thank you. Apology accepted.


Good! Progress! Hope we can get this resolved.

 Quote:
One of the things that hurt the most was the following thing you posted: "What I'm curious about is if the fact that you think you are morally perfect means you think you are unable to say something sarcastic? Therefore anything you say must not be sarcastic, regardless of how sarcastic it sounds?" Please avoid these kinds of comments in the future. Thank you.


Ok, this makes a bit more sense now. I wasn't understanding why you were so upset at the remark that a phrase you used was sarcastic. However, I can see why you would be upset by this question. I'm sorry this upset you.

I have no desire to continue this discussion beyond getting to the point to where you feel comfortable continuing to have discussions with me. If there's something else you would like me to do, please let me know what it is.

Here's where I see we stand:

a.You used a phrase which I labeled as "sarcastic." The phrase is "Thank you for stating the obvious." I have suggested that in 7,000 posts listed on Google, it is always used as sarcasm. I have offered to back away from my characterization that this phrase is always sarcastic if you can produce a single instance from these 7,000 where it was not used sarcastically (excluding the use of the phrase in question, of course).

b.I did not say you were being sarcastic.

c.I did not say I did not believe you. You asked me to apologize for saying I didn't believe you, but since I do not recall stating this, I haven't offered this apology. I offered to make such an apology if you could establish that I stated that I did not believe you.

d.You asked me to apologize for making the assumption that it was more likely that you were self-deceived than a liar, which apology I offered and you accepted.

e.You brought to my attention a post which you said hurt you. You didn't ask me for an apology for this, but I offered one, because I believed one was in order.

Ok, are we square? If not, please let me know.

Thanks!





Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Can the Law save us? [Re: Tom] #100886
07/13/08 07:58 PM
07/13/08 07:58 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Here's an example of someone using the phrase in a positive manner. It's one of those situations where a lot of people are thinking it, but are too afraid to say it out loud for fear of retribution. When someone is finally brave enough to say it, others are relieved and say so. In this article a guy named Dave Simpson (I have no idea who he is) publicly wrote something that most others are, for whatever reason, too afraid to state - it could be a career wrecker. In this case, he said, "I've never liked the Beatles. There. I've said it." Then he goes on to explain why.

Here are the some of the responses to his article:

Dave Simpson, thank you for stating the obvious, although I have to admit to liking I Am the Walrus. It's a funny song.
Helene Pierre

Just wanted to say thanks to Dave Simpson. I'm always too scared to say it.
Eugenie van Tunzelmann

Is it a coincidence that the biggest Beatles fan I know is also the most irritating and boring man I know?
Bryan Wigmore

Finally somebody who can see the Beatles for what they were - the first, very mediocre boy band.
Ian Lomas

Over the last 30 years alot of people, John Lennon included, have expressed a similar dislike.
Mike Rignall

http://www.guardian.co.uk/thebeatles/story/0,,1087990,00.html

Re: Can the Law save us? [Re: Mountain Man] #100888
07/13/08 08:07 PM
07/13/08 08:07 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
TE: If we're discussing a subject, and you say something which is illogical or inaccurate, what should I do? I don't see how to make progress in a discussion unless these types of issues are discussed. But I'm open to suggestions. What do you suggest?

MM: I never post something that is illogical or inaccurate. That's your opinion. And even if I do post something that is illogical or inaccurate, it is not in your best interest to say so. You know it is not going to be well received. You know it will be offensive. So, leave it unsaid. Keep it to yourself. Let the truth speak for itself. Simply post a quote that clearly and plainly states the truth and leave it up to the Holy Spirit to help me see the error of my ways. You can trust the Holy Spirit to handle it in a winsome and endearing manner.

DA 498
The way to dispel darkness is to admit light. The best way to deal with error is to present truth. It is the revelation of God's love that makes manifest the deformity and sin of the heart centered in self. {DA 498.5}

I will strive to be this way, too.

Re: Can the Law save us? [Re: Mountain Man] #100889
07/13/08 08:20 PM
07/13/08 08:20 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Ok. I'll change my statement to the phrase being "almost always sarcastic."

Given that the phrase "Thank you for stating the obvious" is likely to be taken sarcastically, why not use one of the following?

1.Thank you for bringing this to my attention. It seems obviously true.
2.That's a good point, although obvious.
3.I'm glad you brought this up, although it's obvious.

The other phrase I remarked on was "if you took the time to actually read the post ..." This seems a bit harsh. Why not

1.Did you read the post carefully?
2.It seems to me you did not read the post carefully.

The "if you took the time" part, as well as "actually" is unpleasant. Can you see how this could be the case for someone reading it?


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Can the Law save us? [Re: Tom] #100892
07/14/08 01:53 PM
07/14/08 01:53 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
TE: The "if you took the time" part, as well as "actually" is unpleasant. Can you see how this could be the case for someone reading it?

MM: Yes. I wrote this in the same post, before you read it. I unwisely, and perhaps unkindly, assumed you might not actually read each quote. My bad. I'm sorry. I will strive not to repeat this in the future.

Re: Can the Law save us? [Re: Mountain Man] #100898
07/14/08 07:37 PM
07/14/08 07:37 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Ok, so we're all square?


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Can the Law save us? [Re: Tom] #100910
07/15/08 01:31 PM
07/15/08 01:31 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Yes.

Re: Can the Law save us? [Re: Mountain Man] #100970
07/18/08 04:34 PM
07/18/08 04:34 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
 Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
TE: I think you missed the point!

MM: And I think you are missing an important point. The security of unfallen beings rested upon the honor and integrity of the law of God. Without it they are doomed. Satan's accusations are laid against the law of God. His beef with God is His insistence it be obeyed. Here's how she explains it:

 Quote:
God could employ only such means as were consistent with truth and righteousness. Satan could use what God could not--flattery and deceit. He had sought to falsify the word of God and had misrepresented His plan of government, claiming that God was not just in imposing laws upon the angels; that in requiring submission and obedience from His creatures, He was seeking merely the exaltation of Himself. It was therefore necessary to demonstrate before the inhabitants of heaven, and of all the worlds, that God's government is just, His law perfect. Satan had made it appear that he himself was seeking to promote the good of the universe. The true character of the usurper and his real object must be understood by all. He must have time to manifest himself by his wicked works. {PP 42.1}

The discord which his own course had caused in heaven, Satan charged upon the government of God. All evil he declared to be the result of the divine administration. He claimed that it was his own object to improve upon the statutes of Jehovah. Therefore God permitted him to demonstrate the nature of his claims, to show the working out of his proposed changes in the divine law. His own work must condemn him. Satan had claimed from the first that he was not in rebellion. The whole universe must see the deceiver unmasked. {PP 42.2}

Even when he was cast out of heaven. Infinite Wisdom did not destroy Satan. Since only the service of love can be acceptable to God, the allegiance of His creatures must rest upon a conviction of His justice and benevolence. The inhabitants of heaven and of the worlds, being unprepared to comprehend the nature or consequences of sin, could not then have seen the justice of God in the destruction of Satan. Had he been immediately blotted out of existence, some would have served God from fear rather than from love. The influence of the deceiver would not have been fully destroyed, nor would the spirit of rebellion have been utterly eradicated. For the good of the entire universe through ceaseless ages, he must more fully develop his principles, that his charges against the divine government might be seen in their true light by all created beings, and that the justice and mercy of God and the immutability of His law might be forever placed beyond all question. {PP 42.3}

God could employ only such means as were consistent with truth and righteousness. Satan could use what God could not--flattery and deceit. He had sought to falsify the word of God and had misrepresented His plan of government, claiming that God was not just in imposing laws upon the angels; that in requiring submission and obedience from His creatures, He was seeking merely the exaltation of Himself. It was therefore necessary to demonstrate before the inhabitants of heaven, and of all the worlds, that God's government is just, His law perfect. Satan had made it appear that he himself was seeking to promote the good of the universe. The true character of the usurper and his real object must be understood by all. He must have time to manifest himself by his wicked works. {PP 42.1}

The discord which his own course had caused in heaven, Satan charged upon the government of God. All evil he declared to be the result of the divine administration. He claimed that it was his own object to improve upon the statutes of Jehovah. Therefore God permitted him to demonstrate the nature of his claims, to show the working out of his proposed changes in the divine law. His own work must condemn him. Satan had claimed from the first that he was not in rebellion. The whole universe must see the deceiver unmasked. {PP 42.2}

Even when he was cast out of heaven. Infinite Wisdom did not destroy Satan. Since only the service of love can be acceptable to God, the allegiance of His creatures must rest upon a conviction of His justice and benevolence. The inhabitants of heaven and of the worlds, being unprepared to comprehend the nature or consequences of sin, could not then have seen the justice of God in the destruction of Satan. Had he been immediately blotted out of existence, some would have served God from fear rather than from love. The influence of the deceiver would not have been fully destroyed, nor would the spirit of rebellion have been utterly eradicated. For the good of the entire universe through ceaseless ages, he must more fully develop his principles, that his charges against the divine government might be seen in their true light by all created beings, and that the justice and mercy of God and the immutability of His law might be forever placed beyond all question. {PP 42.3}

The act of Christ in dying for the salvation of man would not only make heaven accessible to men, but before all the universe it would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan. It would establish the perpetuity of the law of God and would reveal the nature and the results of sin. {PP 68.2}

From the first the great controversy had been upon the law of God. Satan had sought to prove that God was unjust, that His law was faulty, and that the good of the universe required it to be changed. In attacking the law he aimed to overthrow the authority of its Author. In the controversy it was to be shown whether the divine statutes were defective and subject to change, or perfect and immutable. {PP 69.1}

If the law could be changed, man might have been saved without the sacrifice of Christ; but the fact that it was necessary for Christ to give His life for the fallen race, proves that the law of God will not release the sinner from its claims upon him. It is demonstrated that the wages of sin is death. When Christ died, the destruction of Satan was made certain. But if the law was abolished at the cross, as many claim, then the agony and death of God's dear Son were endured only to give to Satan just what he asked; then the prince of evil triumphed, his charges against the divine government were sustained. The very fact that Christ bore the penalty of man's transgression is a mighty argument to all created intelligences that the law is changeless; that God is righteous, merciful, and self-denying; and that infinite justice and mercy unite in the administration of His government. {PP 70.1}

The holy inhabitants of other worlds were watching with the deepest interest the events taking place on the earth. In the condition of the world that existed before the Flood they saw illustrated the results of the administration which Lucifer had
endeavored to establish in heaven, in rejecting the authority of Christ and casting aside the law of God. In those high-handed sinners of the antediluvian world they saw the subjects over whom Satan held sway. The thoughts of men's hearts were only evil continually. Genesis 6:5. Every emotion, every impulse and imagination, was at war with the divine principles of purity and peace and love. It was an example of the awful depravity resulting from Satan's policy to remove from God's creatures the restraint of His holy law. {PP 78.4}

By the facts unfolded in the progress of the great controversy, God will demonstrate the principles of His rules of government, which have been falsified by Satan and by all whom he has deceived. His justice will finally be acknowledged by the whole world, though the acknowledgment will be made too late to save the rebellious. God carries with Him the sympathy and approval of the whole universe as step by step His great plan advances to its complete fulfillment. He will carry it with Him in the final eradication of rebellion. It will be seen that all who have forsaken the divine precepts have placed themselves on the side of Satan, in warfare against Christ. When the prince of this world shall be judged, and all who have united with him shall share his fate, the whole universe as witnesses to the sentence will declare, "Just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints." Revelation 15:3. {PP 79.1}

If you [take the time] to read this passage then you should be able to agree with me that the honor and integrity of the law is an important part of the GC. Jesus died on the cross to satisfy the holy and just claims of the law, namely, death must come in consequence of man's sin. In so dying Jesus preserved the honor and integrity of the law, and He thereby confirmed the love and allegiance of unfallen beings. His willingness to die to preserve the law endeared unfallen beings forever. It also gives us a second chance at eternal life. And, it gives God the legal right to pardon and save penitent sinners.

To pardon and save penitent sinners God had to act in harmony with His law. He could not disregard the just and loving demands of law and justice, as it relates to the punishment of sinners, without jeopardizing the love and allegiance of unfallen beings. To disregard the death penalty would forfeit the love and allegiance of unfallen beings. Why? Because if God is willing to ignore the law for one reason what is to stop Him from doing it for any reason? Such a state would be unsettling, to say the least. Thus, Jesus died in our place, which satisfies the death penalty and preserves the honor and integrity of the law. So far, so good. Now, the rest of the issues involved in the GC must be settled.

TE: MM, you were disputing that the angels were made secure by the cross. So I presented this passage to demonstrate to you that they were. Please acknowledge this, and then we can consider whatever other things you want to look at.

Here's the crux of her explanation (quoted above):

"The inhabitants of heaven and of the worlds, being unprepared to comprehend the nature or consequences of sin, could not then have seen the justice of God in the destruction of Satan. Had he been immediately blotted out of existence, some would have served God from fear rather than from love. The influence of the deceiver would not have been fully destroyed, nor would the spirit of rebellion have been utterly eradicated. For the good of the entire universe through ceaseless ages, he must more fully develop his principles, that his charges against the divine government might be seen in their true light by all created beings, and that the justice and mercy of God and the immutability of His law might be forever placed beyond all question.

"The act of Christ in dying for the salvation of man would not only make heaven accessible to men, but before all the universe it would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan.

"When Christ died, the destruction of Satan was made certain."

The unfallen beings throughout God's far flung universe only need to understand why it will be just and holy and right for God to destroy Satan and the evil angels. They already agree that it will be, but they don't, at this point, understand why. But by the time it happens they will understand why and be in prefect agreement.

In the meantime, she says, "God carries with Him the sympathy and approval of the whole universe as step by step His great plan advances to its complete fulfillment. He will carry it with Him in the final eradication of rebellion."

None of this makes me think, like you seem to think, that the unfallen beings were insecure in their faith and allegiance to God until the moment Jesus died on the cross. Not so. Instead, she says, God had their "sympathy and approval" long before Jesus died on the cross. His death merely confirmed what they already believed by faith. They never doubted and were never insecure or uncertain. Their security was a reality every step of the way, and still is, even though Satan has not yet been punished and destroyed in the lake of fire.

Page 7 of 27 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 26 27

Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
What are the seven kings of Rev. 17:10?
by dedication. 11/24/24 09:57 PM
No mail in Canada?
by Rick H. 11/22/24 06:45 PM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 11/21/24 11:03 AM
Fourth quarter, 2024, The Gospel of John
by asygo. 11/20/24 02:31 AM
The 2024 Election, the Hegelian Dialectic
by ProdigalOne. 11/15/24 08:26 PM
"The Lord's Day" and Ignatius
by dedication. 11/15/24 02:19 AM
The Doctrine of the Nicolaitans
by dedication. 11/14/24 04:00 PM
Will Trump be able to lead..
by dedication. 11/13/24 07:13 PM
Is Lying Ever Permitted?
by kland. 11/13/24 05:04 PM
Global Warming Farce
by kland. 11/13/24 04:06 PM
Profiles Of Jesus In Zecharia
by dedication. 11/13/24 02:23 AM
Good and Evil of Higher Critical Bible Study
by dedication. 11/12/24 07:31 PM
The Great White Throne
by dedication. 11/12/24 06:39 PM
A god whom his fathers knew not..
by TruthinTypes. 11/05/24 12:19 AM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
Perils of the Emerging Church Movement
by dedication. 11/24/24 04:13 AM
Dr Ben Carson: Church and State
by Rick H. 11/22/24 07:12 PM
Will Trump Pass The Sunday Law?
by dedication. 11/22/24 12:51 PM
Understanding the 1,260-year Prophecy
by dedication. 11/22/24 12:35 PM
Private Schools
by Rick H. 11/22/24 07:54 AM
The Church is Suing the State of Maryland
by Rick H. 11/16/24 04:43 PM
Has the Catholic Church Changed?
by TheophilusOne. 11/16/24 08:53 AM
Dr Conrad Vine Banned
by Rick H. 11/15/24 06:11 AM
Understanding the 1290 & 1335 of Daniel 12?
by dedication. 11/05/24 03:16 PM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter
Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com

Copyright 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.

"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1