Seventh Day Adventists

[Eileen_T]

Hapy Sabbath!!! To All!

Amen!

How many Catholics worshipped God at Mass today? … and will tomorrow, the Day of the Lord?..and on the other days of the week?

Tell me… according to the SDA, Who Changed the Sabbath?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

I’m choosing the Covenant of Yeshua but I have a real big issue worshiping on “the most venerable day of the sun”

I’m a weirdo it bothers me

B ut your have no problem worshipiing on the feast of Saturnalia? How odd.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Brother2,

I really do not think that name-calling is appropriate. Not everyone is into making ridiculing beliefs as some type of sport.

Ha scaredycat!! Thanks for reporting me…should put the Adventist Cat amongst the Catholic Pigeons…ho ho. Not poking fun happilycatholic…just enjoying the craic…

Shalom. May God bless all here. Michael.

So, if you really want to bring about a spirit of “Shalom” then heads up - don’t put on you have every reason to believe is not only offensive - but, will most probably offend others. This is a focused and dedicated list - participating in a like manner will go a long way helping to spread that spirit of “Shalom”

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Richard,

I was following you pretty well until you got to this part…

Actually Judas and Silas were contemporaries of the apostles. Silas even preached with Paul for a time. Acts 15 talks about the first General Conferance meeting of the Seventh Day Adventist Church and in it some of the Apostles And other stalwarts of the church come together to discuss the question of whether or not people had to become Jews (be circumcized, keep the Levitical law) before they could become Christians.

What did you mean by this. As I appreciate the situation, the Seventh Day Adventist Church was formerly established in 1863 ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist ) - NOT the 1st Century.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ern42,

And, a Happy Sunday to you tomorrow!

Hapy Sabbath!!! To All!

God bless

 

[happilycatholic]

I certainly have not suggested that every word of the Lord is written down in the bible. I don’t have a problem admitting that. It’s you next statement that I have a huge problem with.

Here’s what you *have *said:

"How do you think we become one with the Father and the Son "

Can you explain this then?

What you are saying here is that because every word that Jesus spoke is not written down. The words that are written down are not sufficient to introduce us to Christ. This doesn’t even make a little sense. and if it is correct it makes Jesus a liar.

 

[ern42]

You know who the devil works through? People like you that want to be ignorant to God’s messages that are extremely clear in his word. People that take the words of a SINFULL ordinary man like the pope and your priest and want to make him God! Like the Bible says to the Law (10-commandments) & the estimony, if you don’t understand these things it’s because you close your heart and mind to the Holy Spirit. Be very careful, because it is written that soon probation will end, and then where will you be, with those satanic thoughs of your. The catholic church as a political and religious organization has let the devil use it, to twist the REAL LAWS of heaven. Everyday catholics do the will of men, they are doing the will of the devil himself. Some unfortunately because they just don’t know and others because they choose to ignore God’s true calling. You speak about Ellen White and Joseph Bates, yet the things tha came out of their mouths were in accourdance to scripture, unlike the countless popes and priests and “fathers” that spew basfemy in the presence of the Lord. Like I’ve said in the past…Keep defending satanic doctrines. Keep confusing good innocent people from knowing God’s true message, which is to follow HIM! One day you, me and everyone one on earth will have to answer to God! That is a fact! God’s things are very simple!!! Either you worship him and do HIS WILL or you worship the devil and do the devils will, which is anything but God’s.

PS> Why are you so facinated with Ellen White and Joseph Bates, and the Seventh Day Adventist movement? Isn’t your church the only church with authority and power on earth? Why don’t you spend your time learning more about your “truths” if they are so infallible? You see I do not waste my time listening to the pope or anyone for that manner, who speaks outside Biblical truths! I’ve spoken to you and to others on this forum, becasue God ask in his scriptures to share the light. Yet I will not enter usless dialouge with people that just want to argue God’s truth. When you want to open your heart to God, we’ll talk again, until then Good luck!

 

[greggy53]

Actually Judas and Silas were contemporaries of the apostles. Silas even preached with Paul for a time. Acts 15 talks about the first General Conferance meeting of the Seventh Day Adventist Church and in it some of the Apostles And other stalwarts of the church come together to discuss the question of whether or not people had to become Jews (be circumcized, keep the Levitical law) before they could become Christians.
.

Thank you Richard, the scripture example you gave above is an excellent example of the Churches’ authority over scripture.
Yes indeed let us look at ACTS 15: The issue at the council Jerusalem was whether or not converts had to be circumcised as was required in the scriptures…This is a very good example of the Churches authority. They decided that though the scriptures required circumcision the Church did not! How could they go against scripture?? How could ST Peter who led the council decide to go against scripture? He explains it to us in verse 28

ACTS15, 28 For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things:

It shows clearly how the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit decided to go against old testament scripture and make new law which did not require circumcision. If they had been SDA (like Richard says above) they would have taken the knife to everyone!

 

[happilycatholic]

You know who the devil works through? People like you that want to be ignorant to God’s messages that are extremely clear in his word. People that take the words of a SINFULL ordinary man like the pope and your priest and want to make him God!

Every single one of the Apostles was a “sinful ordinary man”. You don’t even have a basic understanding of Scripture. Just like the posts of Richard, you pluck a few verses out and make of them what you want.

Like the Bible says to the Law (10-commandments) & the estimony, if you don’t understand these things it’s because you close your heart and mind to the Holy Spirit. Be very careful, because it is written that soon probation will end, and then where will you be, with those satanic thoughs of your.

You are the SDA on the catholic website.

You are the ones trying to argue catholic doctrine, not me. I’m just defending myself and my faith. I was trying to ask you questions about YOUR faith, but you refuse to answer them.

I have no fascination with ellen nor joseph. I’ve only mentioned them as your leadership and the founders of your Church. Why is that so distasteful to you?

You are the one coming here accusing ME of satanic this and that. I’ve not said one thing about you worshipping anything other than God. I’ve even referred to you as being just like me, Christian.

I’ve gotten way less than that from you. YOU are the one that needs to take a look in the mirror. I may have asked a couple of difficult questions, but I never accused you of being a satan worshipper.

You are rude and nasty.

God Bless your soul.

HC

 

[happilycatholic]

I invite anyone here to read my posts directed at Seventh Day Adventists. While some of the things I’ve said have been pointed, I have never accused anyone here or anywhere else on this forum of being unChristian.

I have let them ask me difficult questions and I’ve answered them to the best of my ability, which is lacking I’m sure. But I have not slandered the SDA church as being led by satan or influenced by satan. I have not called them a cult.

I really find this typical of those who don’t know how to defend their faith and resort to slander without the benefit of fact.

I don’t mind what they call me or my Church if they can back it up. Where is their proof? It seems that others can say nasty, biting things about catholicism without proof, but as soon as I say, “SDAs aren’t practicing the Sabbath as it was meant to be”, I get these scalding posts directed at me.

Well, guess what, I can prove you’re not “keeping the Sabbath”. Ask any Jew if you are keeping the Sabbath Holy. For that matter, ask any Jew if the catholic Church changed their Sabbath, they will say no. If you ask them who did, they will say it is the Christians of today who claim to keep the Sabbath. They will even tell you, the Sabbath was given to them, not Christians to keep.

I’m sorry, but I refuse to discuss faith of any kind with rude folks such as ern.

Ern: If you want to discuss religion and not blaspheme and call names and be horribly rude, then let’s.

 

[happilycatholic]

It’s interesting that you would use this text and take it completely out of context. Let’s put it back in and see what we get.
Romans 10

1. 1Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2. 2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
   3For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
   (Paul is saying here that the Jews have a zealousness for God , but it is misplaced. They think that they can do it themselves.) interesting commentary given the 16th century doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the theory you have about those faiths that were “invented” at that time under that doctrine
   4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
   (Christ and His righteousness is the only way.) then why do you ignore Him when He clearly tells you how to Remember Him with Bread and Wine?
   5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
   (Again here Moses describes the righteousness of the law. And where does Moses discribe this righteousness? In scripture (the written word of coarse). Which means that if our righteousness is going to be by the law we have to keep the law. In other words be perfect. This we cannot do of ourselves. Romans 3:23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
   6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
   7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
   8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
   (This v. Is a reference back to v. 6. To the righteousness that is by faith. What is nigh thee? Well it’s the word, the word of faith that they preach.)
   9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
   (What they are preaching is the gospel message contained in the bible)
   10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
   **11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. **12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
   (It says here the scripture saith. In other words they are preaching the gospel that is contained in SCRIPTURE.)
   13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
   14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
   15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
   16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? (What gospel do you think it is talking about here in Isaiah? Is it not the gospel of Jesus Christ and is not this gospel written down?)
   **17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. **
   (“hearing by the word of God” The word both written and preached there is no difference.)
   18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
   19But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
   20But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
   21But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Okay. I still don’t see how any of these passages tells me that Oral Tradition is not founded. In fact, THIS IS ORAL TRADITION. And the written word they are talking about is the OT. The Gospel of the OT is the same as the Gospel in the NT. They are not preaching “The Gospel” of the New Testament because it didn’t exist. If they were using Scripture, it was, without a doubt the OT!

When Christ rebukes the Pharisees and Scribes in Matt., he says, “Have you not read”. How in the world could they have read anything but the OT???

So the very thing you are using to prove your point is ORAL TRADITION.

You can’t prove your point because the “Bible” didn’t exist then. Paul isn’t talking about “the Bible”.

He isn’t even talking to Christians. He’s very clearly talking to Jews about the OT.

 

[greggy53]

I invite anyone here to read my posts directed at Seventh Day Adventists. While some of the things I’ve said have been pointed, I have never accused anyone here or anywhere else on this forum of being unChristian.

I have let them ask me difficult questions and I’ve answered them to the best of my ability, which is lacking I’m sure. But I have not slandered the SDA church as being led by satan or influenced by satan. I have not called them a cult.

I really find this typical of those who don’t know how to defend their faith and resort to slander without the benefit of fact.

I don’t mind what they call me or my Church if they can back it up. Where is their proof? It seems that others can say nasty, biting things about catholicism without proof, but as soon as I say, “SDAs aren’t practicing the Sabbath as it was meant to be”, I get these scalding posts directed at me.

Well, guess what, I can prove you’re not “keeping the Sabbath”. Ask any Jew if you are keeping the Sabbath Holy. For that matter, ask any Jew if the catholic Church changed their Sabbath, they will say no. If you ask them who did, they will say it is the Christians of today who claim to keep the Sabbath. They will even tell you, the Sabbath was given to them, not Christians to keep.

I’m sorry, but I refuse to discuss faith of any kind with rude folks such as ern.

Ern: If you want to discuss religion and not blaspheme and call names and be horribly rude, then let’s.

Happycatholic don’t let them get to you. What it really means when they start the name calling and the other personal attacks is that they don’t have a good response, and are loosing the argument. These folks memorize a number of scriptures, but lack from what I can see any real understanding of the Christian faith. They have it pounded into their heads that Catholics don’t know the scriptures, and don’t know why we worship the way we do. When we demonstrate that we do know the scriptures, and that we do indeed possess the fruits of the Holy Spirit, it frustrates them. I believe that almost their entire belief system is bulit upon the premis that the Catholics are the “bad guys”. So, be of good cheer and fight the good fight!
God Bless you.

 

[happilycatholic]

Happycatholic don’t let them get to you. What it really means when they start the name calling and the other personal attacks is that they don’t have a good response, and are loosing the argument. These folks memorize a number of scriptures, but lack from what I can see any real understanding of the Christian faith. They have it pounded into their heads that Catholics don’t know the scriptures, and don’t know why we worship the way we do. When we demonstrate that we do know the scriptures, and that we do indeed possess the fruits of the Holy Spirit, it frustrates them. I believe that almost their entire belief system is bulit upon the premis that the Catholics are the “bad guys”. So, be of good cheer and fight the good fight!
God Bless you.

Thanks greggy.

God Bless and Keep you as well!

HC

 

[Javl]

They claim they know the scriptures and worship God, where we don’t. HAH! Little do THEY realize that they are doing exactly what the devil wants, and that is to provide and
sow dissension in the ranks of Christians. There’s no brotherly love or true knowledge among them. They reject Christ’s teachings. Let’s pray for them ( if it isn’t too late! ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hi, Richard,

Hold on a minute … you were doing fine … until your last sentence…and I to take this statement literally…

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
Again you trry to tell me what I believe. I trust Jesus and His word.

So, tell me, Richard, if this is the case, then why is there such dispute over these three scripural items:

I’m not quite sure how my statement above leads to this question, but I’ll try to answer.

1.) Jesus required Baptism to fully recognized as His followers. (Matt 28, and Mark 16Jesus clearly told the apostles to baptize their disciples) But, many Protestants dispute this claiming it is un-necessary, an option or some other mere ritual.

I don’t know of any Christian denomination that does not require baptizm to be a member.

2.) Jesus has given us His very Flesh and Blood to eat (John 6 sets the basis, Matt 26, Mark 14, and Luke 28. The go to 1Cor 10, 1Cor 11, Acts 2, and Rev 5 for further confirmation on what Chat has done for those who believe.

What does this mean? Who or what is Chat?

But Protestants dispute this by claiming this is all a misunderstanding.

A misunderstanding on the CC’s part.

If this were the case - then Jesus was in error when He said He was food in eight separate occasions, then the Apostles got it wrong for continuing on what He said

Jesus wasn’t in error and the apostles didn’t get it wrong. He is the bread of life, that came from the Father. Jn6:35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Jesus equates eating the bread of life with having faith in Him in this v. In v. 63 He says "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. So, the bread of life is the same as the words that He speaks which are life " Which explains what He means in v. 53 when He says “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” This is further explained in Jn1:14 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, Peter confirms this in v. 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. So, eating the bread of life is having faith in Jesus. Eating His flesh (having life in you), is a matter of taking spiritual nourishment from His word.

• then the Early Church Fathers got it wrong since they were taught by the Apostles and all of those closest in time and and place to Christ have been laboring under this ‘misurndestanding’.

Yes, this one is right. Either they weren’t disciples of the apostles or they apostacized what they were taught.

We are to believe we had to wait until the 16th Century to get this right? I think not.

Why would you think we had to wait until the 16th century. There has always been keepers of the truth, down through the millenia. Ever since God created His church. Which is talked about in Gen. 3:15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. That church is not however the CC.

3.) Jesus has given men the delegated Power of God to forgive sin (John 20). Bur Protestants dispute this by claiming this is not necessary - they claim to go directly to God, when Christ Himself pointed out the Way He wanted was not this.

I think my commentary explains this better than I could.

1. Whose soever sins. Jesus here speaks to the disciples as representatives of His church on earth, to which, acting in its corporate capacity, He has entrusted the responsibility of caring for the spiritual interests and needs of its individual members. Jesus had already explained to them at length how to deal with erring members, first personally (see on Matt. 18:1-15, 21–35), and then with the authority of the church (see on vs. 16–20). Now He reiterates the counsel given upon that former occasion.
   The church is to work faithfully for the restoration of its erring members, encouraging them to repent and turn from their evil ways. When there is evidence that things have been made right with God and man, the church is to accept the repentance as genuine, to release the erring one from the charges brought against him (to “remit” his “sins”), and to receive him back into full fellowship. Such a remitting of sins is ratified in heaven; in fact, God has already accepted and pardoned the repentant one (see on Luke 15:1–7). The Scriptures explicitly teach, however, that confession of sin and repentance for it are to be made directly to the throne of grace in heaven (see Acts 20:21; 1 John 1:9), and that the release of the soul from sin comes only through the merits of Christ and His personal mediation (1 John 2:1). This prerogative God has never delegated to erring mortals, themselves so often in need of divine mercy and grace, even though they be the appointed leaders of the church.
   Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 5. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002, S. 1067

Truly, when it comes to being literal, there seems to be a real Protestant problem with taking the plain text and making a plan application.

Why would we have to apply a plain text to anything? Well the answer is that Jesus always talked in symbolic language. Matt13:34All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

To claim this is not your interpretation shows up still another problem

To claim what is not our interpretation?

personal interpretation has lead to nothing but personal error. You know, Christ said a lot of things - and the Pharisees heard his Words and misinterpreted them. What is plain is that there is a long and established history of misunderstanding the Words of Christ.

Much of that misunderstanding comes from the CC.

What is really needed is a inerrant Guide to understand the inerrant Words of God. Fortunately, we have such a Guide - and that would be the Catholic Church.

God bless

Just another misunderstanding.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Okay. I still don’t see how any of these passages tells me that Oral Tradition is not founded. In fact, THIS IS ORAL TRADITION. And the written word they are talking about is the OT. The Gospel of the OT is the same as the Gospel in the NT. They are not preaching “The Gospel” of the New Testament because it didn’t exist. If they were using Scripture, it was, without a doubt the OT!

When Christ rebukes the Pharisees and Scribes in Matt., he says, “Have you not read”. How in the world could they have read anything but the OT???

So the very thing you are using to prove your point is ORAL TRADITION.

You can’t prove your point because the “Bible” didn’t exist then. Paul isn’t talking about “the Bible”.

He isn’t even talking to Christians. He’s very clearly talking to Jews about the OT.

Okay, Ok, K, What do you mean by OT, oral tradition or old testament.

You seem to be saying here that you think there is a different gospel in the old testament than there is in the new testament. Is this correct?

 

[happilycatholic]

Okay, Ok, K, What do you mean by OT, oral tradition or old testament.

You seem to be saying here that you think there is a different gospel in the old testament than there is in the new testament. Is this correct?

Now that I think about it, what I was actually saying is kind funny:

Paul was using the Old Testament to preach to the Romans about Jesus coming in fulfillment of them by using Oral Tradition (preaching the Gospel).

I’ll clarify: The Gospel of the Old Testament is a foreshadow of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the New. When Jesus and His Apostles speak of “the Gospel” they are talking about the Old Testament and how it relates to the New Gospel He has come to spread.

Sorry, I’d had waaaay too much coffee .

Blessings,

HC

 

[happilycatholic]

You seem to be saying here that you think there is a different gospel in the old testament than there is in the new testament. Is this correct?

Not at all. You seemed to be trying to use Paul’s instruction to the Jews to look to the Gospels in Scripture as a proof of your disput of Oral Tradition in the Church. It seemed as though you misunderstood Paul to be speaking of the Gospels of Christ as recorded in the New Testament to prove this. But nonetheless, Paul was *preaching the Gospel. *This is Oral Tradition.

Obviously, the New Testament Gospels were not inspired as of this time, so Paul couldn’t have been speaking of them. That would bring us to the conclusion that Paul was referring to the Old Testament Gospels and preaching (Oral Tradition) the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now, in order to do this Paul would have to be speaking of things implied in the Old Testament, but not explicitly stated . Paul is actually doing exactly what the Church Magesterium does today, uses it’s Apostolic authority to guide its believers through Scripture, even those things that are implicitly stated.

See, my point is this, you believe that at some mysterious point in time (notwithstanding the period between the actual canonization of the Old and New Testaments) that God took away this Apostilic authority and left us with only Scripture to guide His Church.

Can you show me where God did that?

Paul is clearly using Apostilic authority here to teach things that are not explicit in Scripture. greggy has shown you were the Church is in authority over Scripture.

So, we’ve clearly shown you these two ways in which the Church was leading Christ’s Ministry. Not to mention the fact that you in some arbitrary way, believe the Church had the authority to decide which books would be in the Bible, but not how to interpret the same Scriptures? Or maybe the Church could be infallible in it’s cannonizing the Bible, but not it’s interpretation of it?

Don’t you think the Church would have to know beyond all possibility of being errant what was in Scripture before they could then put that in order and distribute it amongst all Christians for all time?

It doesn’t even make sense that you would accept the very Bible you quote from as being canonized correctly, but you don’t accept the very Church who did that to know what’s being said in it. That’s simply illogical.

If you could explain how you arrive at this, I think we could be on the same page.

Blessings,

HC

 

[happilycatholic]

Not at all. You seemed to be trying to use Paul’s instruction to the Jews to look to the Gospels in Scripture as a proof of your disput of Oral Tradition in the Church. It seemed as though you misunderstood Paul to be speaking of the Gospels of Christ as recorded in the New Testament to prove this. But nonetheless, Paul was *preaching the Gospel. *This is Oral Tradition.

Obviously, the New Testament Gospels were not inspired as of this time, so Paul couldn’t have been speaking of them. That would bring us to the conclusion that Paul was referring to the Old Testament Gospels and preaching (Oral Tradition) the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now, in order to do this Paul would have to be speaking of things implied in the Old Testament, but not explicitly stated . Paul is actually doing exactly what the Church Magesterium does today, uses it’s Apostolic authority to guide its believers through Scripture, even those things that are implicitly stated.

See, my point is this, you believe that at some mysterious point in time (notwithstanding the period between the actual canonization of the Old and New Testaments) that God took away this Apostilic authority and left us with only Scripture to guide His Church.

Can you show me where God did that?

Paul is clearly using Apostilic authority here to teach things that are not explicit in Scripture. greggy has shown you were the Church is in authority over Scripture.

So, we’ve clearly shown you these two ways in which the Church was leading Christ’s Ministry. Not to mention the fact that you in some arbitrary way, believe the Church had the authority to decide which books would be in the Bible, but not how to interpret the same Scriptures? Or maybe the Church could be infallible in it’s cannonizing the Bible, but not it’s interpretation of it?

Don’t you think the Church would have to know beyond all possibility of being errant what was in Scripture before they could then put that in order and distribute it amongst all Christians for all time?

It doesn’t even make sense that you would accept the very Bible you quote from as being canonized correctly, but you don’t accept the very Church who did that to know what’s being said in it. That’s simply illogical.

If you could explain how you arrive at this, I think we could be on the same page.

Blessings,

HC

Richard,

I hope you are not bowing out of this discussion now. I’m hoping to get a response to this post.

Blessings,

HC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, HC,

Don’t lose your cool … I, too, found the post rude, offensive and in violation with CAF rules. I reported this to the Mod and we will just see what happens.

You are the SDA on the catholic website.

You are the ones trying to argue catholic doctrine, not me. I’m just defending myself and my faith. I was trying to ask you questions about YOUR faith, but you refuse to answer them.

I have no fascination with ellen nor joseph. I’ve only mentioned them as your leadership and the founders of your Church. Why is that so distasteful to you?

You are the one coming here accusing ME of satanic this and that. I’ve not said one thing about you worshipping anything other than God. I’ve even referred to you as being just like me, Christian.

I’ve gotten way less than that from you. YOU are the one that needs to take a look in the mirror. I may have asked a couple of difficult questions, but I never accused you of being a satan worshipper.

You are rude and nasty.

God Bless your soul.

HC

My suggestion is that you just ignore future posts.

God bless