Mike, your usual problem is not that you quote too much context but that you do not comment why you chose to quote either text or its context. (Also, quoting extensively from a quote collection does not constitute context..)

Thank you for pointing out my problem. I didn't realize I post quotes without sufficient context to accurately represent the point. I would appreciate it if you would point it out when what I post doesn't support my point. It is not my intent to misrepresent the truth or to falsify it. Also, I will try to make it more clear why I think the quotes I post support my point.

Regarding #129486, in the first part, I misread what you wrote as applying to angels instead of humans. That is, you wrote:



I misread this as asking about angels, which you did ask elsewhere, but not here. So probably my comments didn't make much sense, so I apologize for that.



Any of these things involves the Great Controversy.



This is a confusing question. What I'm saying is that when man fell, God both saved man and solved the problems Satan had raised by means of the cross. Had man not fallen, I believe God would have solved the problems Satan had raised in some other way.



Not sure what you mean by "efficacious." That is, efficacious in terms of accomplishing what? It's certainly advantageous to have been born after Jesus Christ came than before, as we have more light than those who lived before had. One can say the same thing in relation to being born after the 19th century, to have access to the SOP and other light that God has sent. I also gave the example of slaves, who won't even be resurrected, so bad was their situation. So not everyone is born into equally fair situations. But this doesn't mean God isn't fair. It means that sin creates situations where people experience injustice.



It's not fair that some people were born as slaves, while others not.

Ellen White often wrote "sin is ..." without following this with "transgression of the law." Your reasoning here would have her contradicting herself every time she did this.

That sin is secession from the government of God would only be a contradiction if it were the case that transgression of the law were not secession from the government of God. That is, that the definition of "sin" is "transgression of the law" means that wherever "sin" is used, one could substitute "sin" with "transgression of the law." When Fifield wrote of sin being secession from the government of God, he was speaking of a characteristic of sin; he wasn't giving this as a definition of sin. That Fifield understood sin as being transgression of the law is apparent in what he wrote.



These are talking about two different things. These "whereas's" you are making are entirely out of place.



This is just what Fifield wrote! Didn't you get this? This is what the paragraphs I quoted stated.

Same comment on your next paragraph.



Why do you think this?



Fifield was explaining how the death of Christ honors the law of God, and why it was necessary. Central to understanding Fifield is the concept that death, misery, suffering, etc. are natural consequences to sin, because of their being an organic relationship involved. Death is to sin what the oak is to the acorn. James brings this out in explaining that sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.

This is the time of year when we reflect more often upon the death of Christ and why He died on the Tree of Calvary for us that secured Eternal Life for the "whosoever will" of John 3:16.

While remembering Christ's death and more importantly, His resurrection, how should one approach Easter, (Ēostre and Ôstarâ are the names of a putative Germanic goddess - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre), when it isn't even on the same day as passover?

In some Adventist churches, they even have what can be viewed as a processional.

And don't forget the rabbits:
Boyle writes that "her carriage, we are told by Snorri, was drawn by a pair of cats — animals, it is true, which like hares were the familiars of witches, with whom Freyja seems to have much in common."

We should approach Easter the same that we should do with Christmas with our focus and opportunity on presenting Christ to those around us in our respective communities.

I agree, Daryl. Most people don't care at all or know anything about the pagan backgrounds to the holidays we observe, but they may be more willing then normal to enter into religious conversations.