Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[oldsailor29]

Credentials do not mean a lot. There are many highly credentialed people who cannot think logically. And if your argument is not logical, then it is of no benefit regardless of your credentials. Rather than cite credentials, a person should present clear concise evidence of the validity of their argument.

It seems to me that our church is pro-choice. However, defective and enfeebled as she is, the SDA church is the only object on this earth upon which He bestows His supreme regard. I know that is not an accurate quote, but as long as it says SDA, God, and supreme regard, I think it can be correctly understood.

[Steve Billiter]

Credentials do not mean a lot. There are many highly credentialed people who cannot think logically. And if your argument is not logical, then it is of no benefit regardless of your credentials. Rather than cite credentials, a person should present clear concise evidence of the validity of their argument.

It seems to me that our church is pro-choice. However, defective and enfeebled as she is, the SDA church is the only object on this earth upon which He bestows His supreme regard. I know that is not an accurate quote, but as long as it says SDA, God, and supreme regard, I think it can be correctly understood.

Amen oldsailor, I couldn't agree more!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

You said you wanted the degree to be able to become a published author. I have shown that your PhD degree is basically worthless since the program was not accredited, nor did you undergo a dissertation defense.

I consider your dissertation to be an invalid work for the above reasons. Your conclusions may very well be correct, but your trail to get there was wrong. If you are going to do something this time-consuming, do it right, or don't do it at all. Statistical analysis would have been helpful, rather than just using percentages. I felt your Pro and Con Arguments in the Appendix B were generally unprofessionally stated, as was the "Shouting from the Rooftop" and other sections as well. Your writing style needs to be polished; it lacks good grammar and spelling.

Teresaq and John317 found the error in your statement regarding James White. That's a grave error. For someone to be taken seriously in a subject, you must be exact and precise. I think you *tried* to be, but the fact remains, there is error. It rendered your hypothesis invalid.

I'm not going to take your dissertation and give it a thorough investigative treatment. I don't think it's worth my time, nor do I think it a worthwhile thesis as you are a biased individual in this field, as your Abstract highly demonstrates.

bump

[Nic Samojluk]

You said you wanted the degree to be able to become a published author. I have shown that your PhD degree is basically worthless since the program was not accredited, nor did you undergo a dissertation defense.

I consider your dissertation to be an invalid work for the above reasons. Your conclusions may very well be correct, but your trail to get there was wrong. If you are going to do something this time-consuming, do it right, or don't do it at all. Statistical analysis would have been helpful, rather than just using percentages. I felt your Pro and Con Arguments in the Appendix B were generally unprofessionally stated, as was the "Shouting from the Rooftop" and other sections as well. Your writing style needs to be polished; it lacks good grammar and spelling.

Teresaq and John317 found the error in your statement regarding James White. That's a grave error. For someone to be taken seriously in a subject, you must be exact and precise. I think you *tried* to be, but the fact remains, there is error. It rendered your hypothesis invalid.

I'm not going to take your dissertation and give it a thorough investigative treatment. I don't think it's worth my time, nor do I think it a worthwhile thesis as you are a biased individual in this field, as your Abstract highly demonstrates.

Rudiwoofs,

I said I wanted to have the chance of getting my message published in the Adventist media, and this was done. “Adventist Today” did publish two of my submissions. I also published it online in one of my web sites, and it is being read by many people. I feel that I am getting the results I was hoping for. Of course, my main aim is to persuade the church to stop killing the unborn. This is not the work God gave the “Remnant.” In this objective, I have not succeeded, but my message is being heard by many people and God only knows what the result might be. My main concern is being faithful, instead of being successful.

I reject your opinion that my degree is worthless. It has been helping me reach some of the goals I have set for me. The fact that the only online school offering a Ph.D. degree in religion at the time failed their accreditation objective is not my fault and it doesn’t bother me. You have so far been beating around the bushes and have failed in providing any credible evidence to suggest that my main contention and my main conclusion are in error. Besides, you have consistently been avoiding the main question I have been asking you: Do you have any evidence in support that our Adventist church is not pro-choice.

Tell me, why are you avoiding answering this question? That constitutes the heart of this debate! You are arguing that my writing style “lacks good grammar and spelling.” Why don’t you give me some specific examples in order to give me a chance to correct them? This would be the Christian thing to do.

Your general attitude has been so far destructive instead of constructive. I grew up in a Spanish speaking country. I emigrated to the U.S. at the age of 27, which means that my English is a second language for me. Do you think that if at 27 you had relocated to a foreign country with a foreign language you would have done better than what I have accomplished?

Finally, regarding the James quotation, I strongly disagree with you conclusion that my factual error invalidates my hypothesis. Do you think that said text really talks about still born instead of abortion? Please read my previous posting where I point to the fact that someone who is definitely pro-choice has attempted to read between the lines what is not there! Besides, said strange way of reading the text does not match the opinions of the other Adventist pioneers, and it does not match the prevailing ethics of the time.

My hypothesis was that the Adventist Church had veered from a pro-life position to a pro-choice one. Do you dispute this? Please, do not avoid this question like you have been doing, but answer it at least once! You are so off base I have a hard time believing I am wasting precious time responding to you. Of course, I do it not for your sake, but rather for the sake of others, and for the sake of the unborn.

[Nic Samojluk]

Well ... I do have to agree with you Rudywoofs. This is someone who did not recognize your signature "Pam" as being 'female'.

Redwood,

Did you ever made a mistake? I have been the main object of criticims, and I have to wade through about 30 postings a day, and I have to find the time to respond. Would you have done better if you had to walk in my boots? I have to do this in my free time, since I have to take care of my business, my three web sites, and take care of my family. Aren't you siding with Torquemada, the inquisitor?

[Woody]

Quote:

"Did you ever made a mistake?"

I'm sorry. You is cool. Mistakes and all ...

I've 'made' mistakes ... so I can relate.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

In his dissertation, Nic wrote:

Quote:

This leads the observer to wonder whether the SDA church has experienced a ninety-degree shift from the original pro-life position manifested by the founders of this religious movement.

Do you understand what a 90 degree shift means? This error in thinking is another reason why your hypothesis is invalid.

Yes, I think the Church is pro-choice. But your dissertation is so full of unprofesssional animosity and hostility (see Abstract and Appendices), it is fruitless to hold a discussion about the subject with you.

[Woody]

[doug yowell]

[w

Thank you, John317, for clearing up that error in documentation.

[Nic Samojluk]

Nic, I've already posted the official position of the SDA church. We are not pro-choice. What individual church members say and do may be different. I advise everyone to study the wheat and the tares parable in Matt. 13 and COL. PP. 70-76.

Steve,

I commend you for answering the fundamental question in dispute, which is the topic of my investigation, which Rudiwoofs has so far been refusing to answer. The closest she has come so far is when she said “you may be right,” but she is reluctant to take a clear stand.

Of course, I believe you are in error in your conclusion. Our “Ministry” magazine reported a few years ago that five of our hospitals were providing ELECTIVE abortions to their patients. Of course, elective means there is nothing wrong with the baby; the mother simply wants the baby killed. And you believe that our church is not pro-choice but pro-life?

Our church has granted our hospitals the freedom to draft their own guidelines on abortion, which is the reason some of our hospital are engaged in the killing of healthy babies. And you believe that our church is pro-life?

Our “Guidelines on abortion” teach that it is morally acceptable to kill innocent babies which have been conceived as a result of rape, incest, and malformation. And you think that the Adventist church is pro-life?

Our church condones the killing of the unborn when the pregnant female is a minor, and even when the woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy and claims that this is impacting her mental health [a euphemism for “I feel depressed”]. And you believe that our church is pro-life?

Notice that all these stated reasons for accepting the killing of innocent human beings match the tenets of the abortion industry. How in the world can you believe that our church is pro-life? What is your definition of pro-life? How is it different from your definition of pro-choice? Can you explain?

Our guidelines on abortion even argue that Jesus died to grant us the freedom of choice. Do you believe that Jesus died to make sure we would have the right to kill our own children without suffering the consequences of violating the commandments which forbids the killing of innocent human beings? If that is the case, then I could also falsely argue that he died to grant me the freedom of choice to rape, steal, and sexually abuse little children.

I admit that our guidelines include lofty pro-life statements, but are negated by the many exceptions and especially by what our hospitals are doing. What we do speaks louder than what we preach.

[Nic Samojluk]

Credentials do not mean a lot. There are many highly credentialed people who cannot think logically. And if your argument is not logical, then it is of no benefit regardless of your credentials. Rather than cite credentials, a person should present clear concise evidence of the validity of their argument.

It seems to me that our church is pro-choice. However, defective and enfeebled as she is, the SDA church is the only object on this earth upon which He bestows His supreme regard. I know that is not an accurate quote, but as long as it says SDA, God, and supreme regard, I think it can be correctly understood.

Oldsailor,

Your assessment is quite correct. Thanks for posting this comment of yours.

[Woody]

What our hospitals do or don't do ... has little bearing on what our church stands for.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

In his dissertation, Nic wrote:

Quote:

This leads the observer to wonder whether the SDA church has experienced a ninety-degree shift from the original pro-life position manifested by the founders of this religious movement.

Do you understand what a 90 degree shift means? This error in thinking is another reason why your hypothesis is invalid.

Yes, I think the Church is pro-choice. But your dissertation is so full of unprofesssional animosity and hostility (see Abstract and Appendices), it is fruitless to hold a discussion about the subject with you.

bump

Hmmm.Must have been an error that one would over look this Pam. :)

[doug yowell]

Nic, I've already posted the official position of the SDA church. We are not pro-choice. Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you here,Steve.For several reasons which I'll expound (or just pound) on later,ok?

[doug yowell]

What our hospitals do or don't do ... has little bearing on what our church stands for.

We'd appreciate if you would mention that to your congregation when the GC takes up the offering earmarked specifically for Loma Linda University. Don't you think it would be less confusing if we simply removed the name Seventh-day Adventist from all of our Medical Institutions? That way no one would be duped into thinking that our medical work was the "right arm of the gospel"?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

the correct title for the pamphlet is

Quote:

A Solemn Appeal RELATIVE TO SOLITARY VICE, AND THE ABUSES AND EXCESSES OF THE MARRIAGE RELATION.

EDITED BYELDER JAMES WHITE.

james white did not write the pamphlet, he just edited it. but you would lead people to believe he did write it and that it was his sentiments.

from nics "dissertation"

Quote:

It might be proper to start this chapter with a brief description of the SDA pioneer’s attitude towards Abortion. This will take us back to 1870, ... What was the Seventh-day Adventist forefathers’ attitude towards the destruction of human life prior to natural birth? At that time, one of the most prolific spokesmen for the nascent Adventist movement was James White, the founder of the SDA publishing work and also president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Here is what he declared; ...

The Opinion of James White.

(quoted above)....

Do these statements by James White, the founder of the SDA publishing work and president of the SDA church sound like pro-life statements? [/quote']here you state uncategorically that it was james white who wrote this.

james white did not write the paragraph in question. therefore we do not know his true sentiments.

Teresa,

Thanks! This is first valid critique which addresses my research instead of beating around the bushes like Rudiwoofs has been doing.

rudywoofs was not beating around the bushes, you were. you made assertions, she asked for proof, you and "yours" did everything to evade an honest question.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

I am familiar with online PhD programs. Accredited ones will require you to defend your dissertation in some manner. Perhaps this is one reason the accreditation was not granted to that particular institution.

I would have also suggested you take a statistics class. Your "Statistics" section only provided percentages. That's not sound statistical reasoning, IMHO.

this means the church has departed from the pro-life position of our early pioneers.

our church had no official stance on abortion and you have already been proven wrong on the position of our pioneers.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

If we are going to insist on focusing solely on who wrote A Solemn Appeal to the exclusion of all the other recorded sentiments by our SDA pioneers at least lets get the facts straight.

lets not muddy the waters. the issue was whether james white wrote it as claimed.

there has never been an official stance on abortion by the sda church.

nic has already given evidence of not being a legitimate sda, are you one?

in which case trying to manipulate and coerce sda members into your agenda is really not appreciated. :(

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

You said you wanted the degree to be able to become a published author. I have shown that your PhD degree is basically worthless since the program was not accredited, nor did you undergo a dissertation defense.

I consider your dissertation to be an invalid work for the above reasons. Your conclusions may very well be correct, but your trail to get there was wrong. If you are going to do something this time-consuming, do it right, or don't do it at all. Statistical analysis would have been helpful, rather than just using percentages.

Teresaq and John317 found the error in your statement regarding James White. That's a grave error. For someone to be taken seriously in a subject, you must be exact and precise. I think you *tried* to be, but the fact remains, there is error.

I'm not going to take your dissertation and give it a thorough investigative treatment. I don't think it's worth my time, nor do I think it a worthwhile thesis as you are a biased individual in this field.

Pam. What did you get your Ph.D in? How long did it take you to finish? Were you able to get it published?

irrelevant and off-topic.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

A "hunch" is not prejudice. Your whole dissertation was based on prejudice.

Rudiwoofs,

It seems that you are afraid to deal with the real issue.

irrelevant and off-topic.

[teresaq]

Credentials do not mean a lot. There are many highly credentialed people who cannot think logically. And if your argument is not logical, then it is of no benefit regardless of your credentials. Rather than cite credentials, a person should present clear concise evidence of the validity of their argument.

It seems to me that our church is pro-choice. However, defective and enfeebled as she is, the SDA church is the only object on this earth upon which He bestows His supreme regard. I know that is not an accurate quote, but as long as it says SDA, God, and supreme regard, I think it can be correctly understood.

im thinking you and i may not agree on much, but on this we do. :)

[Nic Samojluk]

Thank you, John317, for clearing up that error in documentation.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

In his dissertation, Nic wrote:

Quote:

This leads the observer to wonder whether the SDA church has experienced a ninety-degree shift from the original pro-life position manifested by the founders of this religious movement.

Do you understand what a 90 degree shift means? This error in thinking is another reason why your hypothesis is invalid.

Yes, I think the Church is pro-choice. But your dissertation is so full of unprofesssional animosity and hostility (see Abstract and Appendices), it is fruitless to hold a discussion about the subject with you.

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Hmmm.Must have been an error that one would over look this Pam.

bump

[Nic Samojluk]

What our hospitals do or don't do ... has little bearing on what our church stands for.

Really? Are you in agreement with Jesuits who say: "Don't look at what I do, but rather at what I say"? Haven't you discovered yet that "talk is cheap"? What good is it to have lofty statements about the sanctity of human life if we are in fact killing the most vulnerable members of the human family?

The Adventist Church has granted our medical institutions the privilege to draft their own guidelines on abortion. This is akin to God saying: "I am giving you these Ten Guidelines of conduct, but feel free to draft your own guidelines. Is this what you are saying?

[teresaq]

...Really? Are you in agreement with Jesuits who say: "Don't look at what I do, but rather at what I say"?