Pete Chibibis Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 It would be a mistake to condemn the whole church for the misdeeds and character defects of a few of its members and even some of its leaders. Persecution or the threat of persecution is an effective test of character. I believe it is just over the horizon. As has been mentioned, if one can rationalize breaking the 6th commandment, finding a way around the 4th should be pretty easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 You're right about that Pete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olger Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 It would be a mistake to condemn the whole church for the misdeeds and character defects of a few of its members and even some of its leaders. Persecution or the threat of persecution is an effective test of character. I believe it is just over the horizon. As has been mentioned, if one can rationalize breaking the 6th commandment, finding a way around the 4th should be pretty easy. Oh, come now. God is not going to hurt anybody. no tires were burnt in making this post, the G Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I remind you that a SDA official was indited by the International War Crimes Tribunal for genocide in Rawanda, extridated from the U.S. to face trial, convicted and served his prison time. Following his release he returned to the United States and shortly thereafter died. Read the book on the Rawandan genocide with the title something like: Tomorrow we Die (not exact). It has material on the SDA involvement in that. We have to face reality. Pete, Thanks for reminding us about the role the Adventist played in the Rwandan genocide. Evidently the moral failure of our Adventist leaders during the Jewish genocide in Germany was repeated in Rwanda. Should this surprise us? I do have my doubts. It is true that in the case of the extermination of the Jews by Hitler the General Conference was perhaps impotent to intervene; nevertheless, in the case of the genocide of the unborn which became U.S. national policy following the Roe v Wade decision, the General Conference did play an active role in justifying the mass killing of the innocents with our “Guidelines on Abortion.” In fact, we allowed our Castle Memorial in Hawaii to offer elective abortions two years before the legalization of abortion by our U.S. Supreme Court. This means that the only difference between the genocide in Rwanda and the genocide of the unborn in the U.S. is the fact that in Rwanda our Adventist leaders facilitated the killing of children and adults, while we in the U.S. justify the killing only of those who were not born yet. What is the moral difference? Didn’t Jesus identify with those he described as “the least”? Is there any group of human beings more deserving of the “the least” label than the unborn? Both cases involve the lawless execution of innocent human beings. There is nothing we can do about what took place both in Germany and Rwanda in the past; nevertheless, there is something we can do about the present genocide. We can petition the General Conference to get our hospitals out of the abortion business. This is where I see we can make a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 "We acknowledge with sadness that some of our church members turned against their fellow members and their neighbors. We are saddened that the accused did not act in harmony with the principles of their church. We offer an apology," Dabrowski says. http://www.sweenytod.com/rno/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=551 Bob, Thank you for documenting what Dabrowski, from the General Conference, said about the Adventist participation in the Rwandan genocide. My question is: What “principles” of the Adventist Church was he referring to? If he had the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue in mind, then I ask: How about abortion? Don’t our abortion guidelines justify the killing of innocent human beings? How can we condemn the actions of our leaders in the past but at the same time justify our present moral failures? Aren’t we repeating what the Jews did with Jesus? They built the tombs of the prophets who were murdered in the past but plotted and killed the Author of Life. Then rushed to keep the Sabbath holy after the consummation of their crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Chibibis Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Originally Posted By: Pete Chibibis It would be a mistake to condemn the whole church for the misdeeds and character defects of a few of its members and even some of its leaders. Persecution or the threat of persecution is an effective test of character. I believe it is just over the horizon. As has been mentioned, if one can rationalize breaking the 6th commandment, finding a way around the 4th should be pretty easy. Oh, come now. God is not going to hurt anybody. no tires were burnt in making this post, the G Is that you there Dr. Maxwell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 No he's not, but we do have some Maxwellians around here. They post on threads called "Sin Destroys Itself" and "Is Destruction Inevitable by a Loving Creator?" etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 You might have read about what is taking place in Maryland. Both the Catholic Holy Cross Hospital and the Adventist HealthCare of Takoma Park are competeing for the right to expand their health services near Wahington, D.C. There seems to be a strong opposition againts the Catholic bid because they do not offer elective abortion services to their patients. A willingnes to engage in the killing of unborn babies might give the Adventists an advantage over the Catholics.It will be interesting to see who wins. Here is the news item: "Abortion rights groups fight Catholic hospital. ROCKVILLE, MD - Abortion advocates are fighting a proposal to build a new Catholic hospital near Washington, DC. Holy Cross, a Catholic hospital in Silver Spring, Maryland, has submitted a bid to state officials to build a new campus in Germantown. The Maryland Health Care Commission is expected to pick between that bid and one from Adventist HealthCare of Takoma Park in the spring. Adventist wants to build its facility in Clarksburg. A coalition of abortion advocacy groups, including Planned Parenthood, is lobbying the state and Montgomery County's elected officials against Holy Cross' proposal. Holy Cross has restrictions on elective abortions and sterilizations, and the groups say that whatever hospital is built should offer a full range of reproductive health services." ... Source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I don't assume that the main obstacle is merely the abortion policy. Could the main gripe be the Adventist inclusion of "sterilization" (whatever that entails)? On the other hand, offering elective abortions has been no stranger to our recent "health message"!! Does anybody have Sherlock Holmes phone number? Is anyone investigating this potential dive into the moral abyss? Does anybody care?? Or is it just that the cat's out of the bag? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olger Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Originally Posted By: olger Oh, come now. God is not going to hurt anybody. no tires were burnt in making this post, the G [/quote'] Is that you there Dr. Maxwell? That was Dr. Tongue in Cheek. Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Chibibis Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Originally Posted By: Pete Chibibis That was Dr. Tongue in Cheek. Thats what I thought. I jsut couldn't figure out how to post a smilie. i like whe way you made my post appear poetic however i am no ee cummings sans capitals nor a charles bukowsi sans bottle sans racing form Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I don't assume that the main obstacle is merely the abortion policy. Could the main gripe be the Adventist inclusion of "sterilization" (whatever that entails)? On the other hand, offering elective abortions has been no stranger to our recent "health message"!! Does anybody have Sherlock Holmes phone number? Is anyone investigating this potential dive into the moral abyss? Does anybody care?? Or is it just that the cat's out of the bag? Doug, Thanks the Lord, there seems to be someone at the General Conference who is talking like a pro-lifer. I am referrring to James Standish. Here is a portion of what he recently published in the North American Liberty Association blog: From "Who Created Human Rights? By James Standish: "For example, under the rubric of “human rights,” over 42 million babies are killed around the world each year. Over a million of these children of God are killed in America, and the majority of those American babies killed are healthy babies, to healthy mothers, conceived consensually, who have perfectly formed little bodies at the time they are killed. Around the globe, the majority of babies killed before they are born are little girls, as societies that place a lower value on women opt to kill them when their gender becomes known. Is this killing of baby girls a fundamental human right? Or is it a crime against creation and by extension, the Creator? It depends whether we anchor our human rights in a loving Creator or the cold brutality of human reasoning." ... Read More: http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog/?p=104 What do you think of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 It's good to hear someone talking like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 It's good to hear someone talking like that. Richard, How come I dont' see your timely comments in the other Adventist blog where the issue of abortion is being discussed? There have been some important entries made lately there. Here is the link in case you want to pay us a visit: http://www.revivalsermons.org/forums/index.php?topic=3053.new;topicseen#new Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook It's good to hear someone talking like that. Richard, How come I dont' see your timely comments in the other Adventist blog where the issue of abortion is being discussed? There have been some important entries made lately there. Here is the link in case you want to pay us a visit: http://www.revivalsermons.org/forums/index.php?topic=3053.new;topicseen#new Ok, I'll check it out, thanks. I usually get notified by e-mail if anyone posts on that thread, if it's the thread I'm thinking about. The one where I posted your Doctoral Dissertation? I'll go have a look see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Ok, I'll check it out, thanks. I usually get notified by e-mail if anyone posts on that thread, if it's the thread I'm thinking about. The one where I posted your Doctoral Dissertation? I'll go have a look see. Richard, I think you may have the wrong web site in mind. If you are not receiving Email updates, you probably need to check your account with the site. You probably missed dozens and dozens of postings. I was referring to the "Revival Sermomns" site. Here is the link: http://www.revivalsermons.org/forums/index.php?topic=3053.new;topicseen#new Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Dear management, How come when I post am Internet link, it doen't light up? Revival Sermons Evidently, I can't get it right no matter how many times I try! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Ok I think I figured out what happened. If you ever fail to respond to one of the e-mail notifications, then it won't send you another one until you go back to that thread. Looks like you guys have carried forward quite well. There were only 10-12 pages last time I was there. Now it's on page 43 I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tall73 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 This text speaks to God's care for the unborn. The topic is not abortion, but it does show that God demanded eye for eye, tooth for tooth even for injury to the unborn. Exo 21:22 "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. Exo 21:23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Exo 21:25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Quote Former Seventh-day Adventist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tall73 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The Bible outlines a moral role for the government. In Romans 13 Paul advises Christians on how to relate to the government. Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, Rom 13:4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Rom 13:5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. Here we find that the role of the government is to punish the wrongdoer and commend those who do right. This authority comes from God. The government then is seen as a moral agent. The government is God's servant in restraining wickedness. The role of the Christian then was to submit to the requirements of the government willingly. Peter says the same in his letter, even encouraging Christians to submit to a persecuting government whenever possible to silence those who accused Christians of bad behavior. Paul and Peter wrote from the perspective of their times while under the emperors of Rome. It is a challenge to apply the principles of their teaching to a republic. For those who find themselves living in a monarchy, dictatorship, etc.the role of the Christian is much the same as Paul outlines--submit when possible without compromising Christian faith. But what about areas where some form of democracy is in place? What is the role of a Christian when they help determine the laws of the land? Unfortunately we do not have clear evidence on this question because the Scriptures largely were written to the original audience in their setting. And neither Israel or the early church were under a democratic form of government. However, we can deduce some things from the biblical counsel. If it is a biblical role of government to restrain wickedness then should we not whenever possible make our influence one that would commend the good and punish the wrongdoer? If the government has a moral role and we have a role in the government, then we should push for moral principles to be upheld by the government. But we need to distinguish between moral and religious legislation. The government has a biblical mandate to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. This does not in any way indicate that the government has a God-given mandate to dictate religious behavior. Israel was a theocracy and therefore faith was at the heart of the Israelite government. But the Bible does not endorse a religious role for government in general. Anytime the state attempts to impose religious beliefs we must follow God not man. Peter and John made this clear in Acts 4 when confronted by the Sanhedrin. Daniel also resisted the decree of the king when he imposed a religious law. Any law that aids a religious group, mandates a state religion, forces a particular religious belief or practice is over-stepping God's mandate for the government. While Adventist believe that the government will impose religious laws this does not mean that Adventists should back away from aiding the government in its God-given responsibility of upholding morality. In light of biblical counsel, Adventists should uphold moral laws just as vehemently as they oppose laws which would enforce religious belief or practice. God gave government authority in a moral sphere, and as Christians we should do all we can to uphold it. But He did not give the government authority in a religious sphere, and when it attempts to enter into this area we must oppose it. It was perhaps easier for the Christian to make political decisions in Paul's day. The common man had no choice in what laws were passed. They submitted to those laws in harmony with God's will. In a democratic society we must make decisions about what laws will pass, what representatives to place in office, and generally, what course of action will promote the good and punish evil. When voting on particular legislation this can be fairly simple. When dealing with candidates it can be more complex. It may be that no one candidate embodies views that we agree with. My personal choice is to vote for the one who I think will uphold the right the majority of the time as this upholds God's role for the government. Quote Former Seventh-day Adventist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tall73 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The issues of temperance and slavery were both addressed by early SDA leaders as moral evils that should be done away with. The issue of temperance is particularly instructive. Here was a divisive moral issue which involved personal freedom. Here is a statement by Ellen White regarding the role of Adventists in temperance legislation. The principle outlined here is applicable to other issues. We as Christians in a a republic have some role in deciding issues. We should uphold virtue. In an article published in the Review of November 8, 1881, I wrote: "There is a cause for the moral paralysis upon society. Our laws sustain an evil which is sapping their very foundations. Many deplore the wrongs which they know exist, but consider themselves free from all responsibility in the matter. This cannot be. Every individual exerts an influence in society. In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?...We talk of the results, tremble at the results, and wonder what we can do with the terrible results, while too often we tolerate and even sanction the cause. The advocates of temperance fail to do their whole duty unless they exert their influence by precept and example--by voice and pen and vote--in favor of prohibition and total abstinence. --Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1914 Are Adventists deploring abortion while at the same time doing nothing to restrain this great evil? Folks can say that the laws do not change hearts. But frankly if something is illegal it does sway some to abandon that course. It makes people thing twice about doing something they may later regret. Here is a key statement from the above paragraph: In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue? As a former Adventist I do not accept statements of Ellen White as inspired. But I do think she had a lot of statements I would agree with. The above statement is in line with the biblical role of upholding the right and punishing the wrongdoer. Quote Former Seventh-day Adventist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tall73 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The Adventist church in the annual meeting of 1865, in light of questions about the appropriateness of voting, made the following statement. The act of voting , when exercised in behalf of justice, humanity, and right, is in itself blameless, and may be at some times highly proper. We recognize civil government as ordained of God, that order, justice, and quiet may be maintained in the land; and that the people of God may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. They upheld the role of the government given by God to uphold justice, humanity and the right. Quote Former Seventh-day Adventist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The Adventist church in the annual meeting of 1865, in light of questions about the appropriateness of voting, made the following statement. The act of voting , when exercised in behalf of justice, humanity, and right, is in itself blameless, and may be at some times highly proper. We recognize civil government as ordained of God, that order, justice, and quiet may be maintained in the land; and that the people of God may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. They upheld the role of the government given by God to uphold justice, humanity and the right. Do you have a referenece? Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tall73 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Originally Posted By: tall73 The Adventist church in the annual meeting of 1865, in light of questions about the appropriateness of voting, made the following statement. The act of voting , when exercised in behalf of justice, humanity, and right, is in itself blameless, and may be at some times highly proper. We recognize civil government as ordained of God, that order, justice, and quiet may be maintained in the land; and that the people of God may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. They upheld the role of the government given by God to uphold justice, humanity and the right. Do you have a referenece? Yes, I did find one. It appears that in the original the statements were more spread out. The quote above mixes statements from two different portions of the minutes. I had the quote on file from before and I must not have gotten it from the original at that time. Here is the key portion as it appears in the Adventist Archive: VOTING RESOLVED, That in our judgment, the act of voting when exercised in behalf of justice, humanity and right, is in itself blameless, and may be at some times highly proper; but that the casting of any vote that shall strengthen the cause of such crimes as intemperance, insurrection, and slavery, we regard as highly criminal in the sight of Heaven. But we would deprecate any participation in the spirit of party strife. OUR VIEWS OF WAR RESOLVED, That we acknowledge the pamphlet entitled "Extracts From the Publications of Seventh-day Adventists Setting Forth Their Views of the Sinfulness of War," as a truthful representation of the views held by us from the beginning of our existence as a people, relative to bearing arms. OUR DUTY TO THE GOVERNMENT RESOLVED, That we recognize civil government as ordained of God, that order, justice, and quiet may be maintained in the land; and that the people of God may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. In accordance with this fact we acknowledge the justice of rendering tribute, custom, honor, and reverence to the civil power, as enjoined in the New Testament. While we thus cheerfully render to Caesar the things which the Scriptures show to be his, we are compelled to decline all participation in acts of war and bloodshed as being inconsistent with the duties enjoined upon us by our divine Master toward our enemies and toward all mankind. RESOLVED, That this Conference request the Executive Committee of the General Conference to prepare an article for publication setting forth our view of the teaching of the Scriptures on the subject of war. This is from a .PDF in the Adventist Archives: Minutes The section begins on page 12. If you look a bit further down in the report you can see their comments on the death of Abraham Lincoln as well. Quote Former Seventh-day Adventist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Thanks for the reference. I appreciate it. I will have to look it over later. It's to late to get into anything heavy now. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.