Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[Steve Billiter]

Quote:

since the catholic church has been against abortions pretty much since its inception, yet there have been unearthed, too many to count, bodies of newborns under some of the nunneries torn down, for me, the point is rather stupid.

at the least it is ridiculous to force someone to carry a baby to term because it is a sin to have an abortion, and then have that person kill the baby, because they are, after all, a nun and shouldn't be having sex....

Quote:

Maybe the nunns should oughta try abstinance. It really works.

in prayer that the Lord will circumcise our hard, cold, calloused hearts for our flippant answers to the circumstances of others....http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nun.htm

Quote:

But when the woman goes in as just a child - she's just a child - and she goes in there with her heart and mind and soul just as clean as any child could be. I say that because sometimes we hear a lot of things that are really not true.

Now, after we become the spouse of Jesus Christ - I want you to listen carefully to this, and then you can follow me into the rest of the testimony - we are now looked upon as married women. We are looked upon as married women. We are the spouse or the Bride of Jesus Christ.

Quote:

And so the day comes and we, all of us now - and as we go on in, I want you to listen carefully, after taking the White Veil - things are beautiful. I'm sixteen and a half years of age. Everyone's good to me. And I'm living in the convent and I haven't seen anything yet, because no little girl - we're not subject to a Roman Catholic Priest until we're twenty-one years of age. And as we give you this next vow, then you'll understand - we don't know about this. This is kept from the little sisters until we've taken our Black Veil and then it's too late.

I don't carry the keys those double doors, and there's no way for me to come out. The priests will tell all over the whole United States and other countries that sisters, or Nuns, rather, can walk out of convents when they want to. I spent twenty-two years there, I did everything there was to do to get out.

Quote:

And so it's a serious thing. And I surely covet your prayers for little Nuns behind Cloistered Convent doors. They'll never hear this Gospel. They'll never know the Christ that you folk know tonight. They'll never pray to Him as you people pray to Him. They'll never feel His blessings as you people feel them. So put them on your hearts and pray for them. They surely need much prayer.

Alright, now as I walk into that room and all of this is transpiring. Now, bless you heart, I don't know what's going to be in the next room. After this has transpired, and I've taken the vows that I will always remain a virgin, I will never legally marry in this world because I'm the spouse of Christ. And then after this, and the Mother Superior leads me out into another room, or rather she opens the door, and I'm to be sent into that room.

THE PRIEST IS THE HOLY GHOST

And when I walk out in that room I see something I have never seen before. I see a Roman Catholic Priest dressed in a holy habit. And he walks over to me and locks his arm in my arm which he had never done in the first part of my convent life. I never had a priest to insult me in any way. I never had one of them to be even unkind to me in the first part of my convent experience. But here he is now. And of course I didn't understand what it was all about. And I didn't know what in the world the man expected of me. And you know, I pulled from him because I felt highly insulted. And I pulled from him and I said, "Shame on you." And it made him very angry for a minute. And the Mother Superior must have heard my voice, because she came out immediately, and she said, "Oh," and they called me by my Church name. She said, "After you've been in the convent a little while you won't feel this way. The rest of us felt the same way you do."

And you know the priest's body is sanctified. And therefore it is not a sin for us to give the priests our bodies. In other words, they teach every little Nun this: As the Holy Ghost placed a germ in Mary's womb, and Jesus Christ was born, so the Priest is the Holy Ghost, and therefore it isn't a sin for us to bare his children. And let me tell you, that's what they come to the convent for. No other purpose in all of this world do priests come into the convent but to rob those precious little girls of their virtue. And I'll assure you, we'll be telling you a little later in the testimony just what they really do after they come in under those particular deals.

But may I say, now every bridge has been burned out from under me. There's no way back. I can't get out of the convent, even though I pled. Oh, how I pled with that priest, "Send for my father. I want to go home. I don't want to go any farther." Only to laugh in my face. And, let me tell you, that's when you stand alone. And you don't know who to turn to. And you're a victim of circumstances. And you live in the convent because there is no other way to get out of the convent. And, I'll assure you, I stayed in the convent until God made a way for me to come out. So now after all of this, my mail will stop. I'll never receive another bit of mail from my family. Never another letter. I belong to the Pope. I belong to Rome.

And then after all of this, the Mother Superior, after taking these partiulcar vows and the priest has invited me to go to the Bridal Chamber..

it is so easy to be flippant and judge things we are completely ignorant of, but have no excuse for being ignorant of...

Abstinence is good because its Biblical if one is not married.

Obeying God and teaching or suggesting one use abstinence is never a cold, calloused heart. The coldness and hate comes from fornication and murder.

The problem is that the papacy doesn't really abide by the commandments nor the faith of Jesus that are irrevocably tied together. Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men always leads to the most base and horrible crimes; without the controlling,sanctifying spirit of Christ, unconverted sinners will reflect to some degree the character of his satanic majesty, who gives his influence to the seat of the papacy.

Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great wonder.

Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sits.

The seven hills of Rome.

Forbidding to marry only causes lust to arise that must be hidden, thus the perverted attacks on altar boys by male priests, is an abomination not so much seen in other churches.

1Co 7:9 But if they cannot have self-control, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Who knows how many nuns have abortions.

Regarding the Catholic church's hypocritical stance on abortion, that should not be surprising; their entire system is based on lies and doctrines of devils.

There is soon coming a day when the law of God will be vindicated as justice demands that the whore who sits on many waters be burned with fire.

Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of demons, and the haunt of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Rev 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judges her.

We speak of an institution here.All persons are invited to heed the three angels messages to come out of Babylon.

There should be no laws allowing abortion, thus circumventing the law of God. we are not to unite with Catholics either in a misguided fight against abortion, as the battle is with the corrupt human heart that needs the grace of Christ, however I see nothing wrong with casting a vote against abortion. Instead of dwelling on the false idea of "forcing" the fornicators to have the baby, the word of God should be considered.....then obeyed.

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.

Gal 6:8 For he that sows to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that sows to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

All of the worlds sinful actions have at the foundation the disobedience of mankind to God's law. It is pure folly to continue such a course.

Psa 139:13 For you have formed my inward parts: you have covered me in my mother's womb.

Jer 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations.

Since God had chosen these prophets from the womb, and He is the one who created them,what gives man the right to kill the unborn?

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

your stance seems to alternate between pro-life and pro-choice. But I could be wrong.

Let me clear it up. I believe abortion when used as birth control, to choose the sex of the child or for convenience is sinful. However I believe abortion should be legal for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. I believe there should be a mandated 24 hour waiting period and pre-abortion counseling provided by an organization with no financial interest in an abortion provider.

I agree somewhat with this view. It is absolutely wrong that in Canada, a 16 year old girl, can go to an abortion clinic, irrespective of her 16 year old boyfriend's view, and without her parents knowledge or consent, and have a baby killed at just over 3 months pregnant, just because they don't want the parents to know, or because it is inconvenient. I believe that our Churchs official guidelines would not ever support such a thing, yet, because the Conference has chosen not to force anyone's conscience on either side of the issue; some have decided that Adventists are pro-abortion. Neither side is right; and in the end, none of the problems stated in this topic get solved because people are too busy with causes, instead of people. Some are choosing to make the Conference guidelines say things that they do not in fact say.

Shane; I see this short post of your's as being too short on details. (IMHO). What reasons are you saying abortions should be legal for? And what is this 24 hour waiting period supposed to be for? Why 24 hours?

How do you see your ideas when compared to the Conference guidelines? (I am not saying I agree 100% with them, but I won't make them say things they don't) I agree with the counselling idea for sure; and the counselling should not be just from the proabortion side. That is too often just marketing.

[doug yowell]

Overaged,(the modern translation of your name would indicate that you have stopped aging)Sorry I didn't respond to your previous challenges earlier in the thread(much earlier!!) but I got somewhat sidetracked. I'm still having trouble following the train of your thinking. You stated earlier that the church WAS NOT PRO-CHOICE. Here, you conclude that they are also NOT PRO-LIFE ("they are neither"),or PRO-ABORTION.So where do you think the church stands?Everyone in on this discussion has concluded that the church is pro-choice so that would leave you alone in your analysis.This would, at least , indicate that the church's guidelines are nebulus enough to allow for a significant number of SDA's and others to misread their intent? That this carries across pro-either one's lines would indicate that the problem lies in the guidelines themselves rather than in the inability of others to comprehend their "true" meaning? You give an example of a situation where you conclude that "our official church guidelines would not ever support such a thing" and immediately procede to state that the church would not "force the conscience" on that same issue. Yet, there is nothing in the guidelines that state that the church would not support that scenerio. And there is nothing in the church practice that would support that conclusion either.So why isn't your reading an example of making the guidelines say what they do not say? You go on to state that "people are too busy with causes,instead of people." Are you saying that unborn human beings are not people? Are you suggesting that the thousands of CPC's around the world who donate tens of thousands of volunteer hours,open up their homes,give freely their money to ministering to those 16 year old expectant mothers are too busy with causes? Are you advocating that it would be better for the church to allow their members to kill their unborn than to do what they can do to stop it?

[Overaged]

Overaged,(the modern translation of your name would indicate that you have stopped aging)Sorry I didn't respond to your previous challenges earlier in the thread(much earlier!!) but I got somewhat sidetracked. I'm still having trouble following the train of your thinking. You stated earlier that the church WAS NOT PRO-CHOICE. Here, you conclude that they are also NOT PRO-LIFE ("they are neither"),or PRO-ABORTION.So where do you think the church stands?Everyone in on this discussion has concluded that the church is pro-choice so that would leave you alone in your analysis.This would, at least , indicate that the church's guidelines are nebulus enough to allow for a significant number of SDA's and others to misread their intent? That this carries across pro-either one's lines would indicate that the problem lies in the guidelines themselves rather than in the inability of others to comprehend their "true" meaning? You give an example of a situation where you conclude that "our official church guidelines would not ever support such a thing" and immediately procede to state that the church would not "force the conscience" on that same issue. Yet, there is nothing in the guidelines that state that the church would not support that scenerio. And there is nothing in the church practice that would support that conclusion either.So why isn't your reading an example of making the guidelines say what they do not say? You go on to state that "people are too busy with causes,instead of people." Are you saying that unborn human beings are not people? Are you suggesting that the thousands of CPC's around the world who donate tens of thousands of volunteer hours,open up their homes,give freely their money to ministering to those 16 year old expectant mothers are too busy with causes? Are you advocating that it would be better for the church to allow their members to kill their unborn than to do what they can do to stop it?

Overaged is simply the opposite of underaged, in my mind; but I don't mind which way you see it.

I am just saying that some go overboard with trying to make the guidelines say what they think they want them to say; while ignoring what they clearly do or do not say.

By "cause" within the context I used it in this topic; I refer to some who have other issues with the Church; and are clearly using the abortion issue/questions as their little springboard/soap box.

I would be surprised if you really thought I meant that unborn human beings are not people. My posts make it pretty obvious what I think. In my nursing of over 14 years; I saw what a baby looks like at 3 months, or more, and I could never in a million years assist a Doctor with an abortion. Especially after I specialized in pediatrics for 3 of those years.

The Church's guidelines themsleves, do state that the Church would not support most but the very diresest of cases where abortion is used, infact they outline various proactive/preventative strategies that should be taken to hopefully prevent people from choosing such a destructive option. I don't see the Church as "Pro Choice," as much as I see them refusing to judge someone for choosing that as an option; and there is a difference.

In one of my posts a while ago; I did mention there was one thing I would like to see changed, revised, reviewed in the Conference guidelines. Funny; no one has asked me what that is. But I remain convinced that the guidelines are twisted by some who have other axes to grind; and that IF people would actually adopt those guidelines, we would NOT be having this discussion now. Resorting to infected and rancid dogmas which accuse the Church of "promoting genocide" and other such things just is not the way it is; and the official guidelines do not leave one with that kind of idea. The official guidelines are not perfect; but they just don't say what some here want them to say.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane; I see this short post of your's as being too short on details. (IMHO). What reasons are you saying abortions should be legal for? And what is this 24 hour waiting period supposed to be for? Why 24 hours?

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

How do you see your ideas when compared to the Conference guidelines?

Our church supports a separation of church and state and does not take a position on the legality of abortion. Our church takes a position on the morality of abortion and I support that 100%.

I agree with this too; and this is what I have been trying to say. The Church does not take the position of forcing people's conscience on this; and that some are trying to make this refusal into a Pro-Abortion Crusade, even resorting to labelling the Church as promoting genocide. Our Catholic friends love that and have taken up the same battle cry against us on that subject. They have told me that because we support murder of babies, we cannot tell them anything. I do think that the Church could go a little further, and have this as one of our official fundamental beliefs. Fundamental belief #29. That would probably be a good idea, and give a stronger voice to the excellent points already given in the official Conference guidelines.

[Jeannieb43]

"Pro-life" is a term without meaning. It is a label attempting to make a distinction. VERY few people are ANTI-life. Some believe that there is a specific time when the fetus attains true life; they are NOT anti-life.

This gets to be a "holier than thou" argument.

[Overaged]

"Pro-life" is a term without meaning. It is a label attempting to make a distinction. VERY few people are ANTI-life. Some believe that there is a specific time when the fetus attains true life; they are NOT anti-life.

This gets to be a "holier than thou" argument.

Very good point!

[teresaq]

amen!

i no longer choose to honor the "lie". they are anti-abortionists, or anti-choice, but i do not see them as "pro-life". far from it.

[SivartM]

I think that "pro-choice" is just as biased as "pro-life".

[Dr. Shane]

Words have meanings. Pro-life has a very distinct meaning. It is by no means meaningless. Trying to argue that pro-life means nothing because no one is anti-life is rather silly and, I think, somewhat immature. That is like saying pro-choice is meaningless because the fetus doesn't have a choice. Rather silly I think.

Pro-life means what those who call themselves pro-life say it means. We need to respect their right to hold their opinion.

Pro-choice means what those who call themselves pro-choice say it means. We need to respect their right to hold their opinion.

[doug yowell]

Words have meanings. Pro-life has a very distinct meaning. It is by no means meaningless. Trying to argue that pro-life means nothing because no one is anti-life is rather silly and, I think, somewhat immature. That is like saying pro-choice is meaningless because the fetus doesn't have a choice. Rather silly I think.

Pro-life means what those who call themselves pro-life say it means. We need to respect their right to hold their opinion.

Pro-choice means what those who call themselves pro-choice say it means. We need to respect their right to hold their opinion.

Thanks Shane. Reasonable,respectful,and unbiased.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Words have meanings. Pro-life has a very distinct meaning. It is by no means meaningless. Trying to argue that pro-life means nothing because no one is anti-life is rather silly and, I think, somewhat immature. That is like saying pro-choice is meaningless because the fetus doesn't have a choice. Rather silly I think.

Pro-life means what those who call themselves pro-life say it means. We need to respect their right to hold their opinion.

Pro-choice means what those who call themselves pro-choice say it means. We need to respect their right to hold their opinion.

Thanks Shane. Reasonable,respectful,and unbiased.

I didn't think it was neither a silly nor immature opinion. In fact, I agree with Jeannie43.

[doug yowell]

I'm not really sure how the church's support of church/state separation relates to it's suggestive guidelines on abortion. The guidelines make no mention of church/state influence on the conclusions the Committee arrived at. Although there are some in the church who view anti-abortion legislation as a constitutional issue there is,in fact, no connection at all.But, please quote from the guidelines, what the church's "position" is on the morality of abortion.And if you agree with it, how do you see your ideas when compared to the church's position on tobacco?

[Guest]

Hey Doug, I was looking through the thread the other day, and saw where you had hollered for me to come help. Sorry I wasn't available. If I had known you were calling for help, I would have come running.

[doug yowell]

Hey Doug, I was looking through the thread the other day, and saw where you had hollered for me to come help. Sorry I wasn't available. If I had known you were calling for help, I would have come running.

I understand. I figured the prince of the kingdom of Persia (Iran) withstood you, or something.

[Guest]

[phkrause]

I didn't think it was neither a silly nor immature opinion. In fact, I agree with Jeannie43.

And I agree with you and Jeannie43.

pk

[Overaged]

Pro-choice means what those who call themselves pro-choice say it means. We need to respect their right to hold their opinion.

[teresaq]

pro-life means to me, doing for the haitians.

it means doing something for these:

As stated before, Uganda has about 2.2 million orphans – over 45% of those orphans have AIDS. There is over 200 million children orphaned worldwide.

doing for these:

The FAO is projecting a rise in the number of people facing chronic hunger worldwide to 1.02 billion as a result of the global economic crisis, which has exacerbated unemployment issues and lowered incomes globally. FAO Director-General Jaques Diouf states: "the silent hunger crisis — affecting one sixth of all of humanity — poses a serious risk for world peace and security. We urgently need to forge a broad consensus on the total and rapid eradication of hunger in the world and to take the necessary actions."

About 24,000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of five.

Famine and wars cause about 10% of hunger deaths, although these tend to be the ones you hear about most often. The majority of hunger deaths are caused by chronic malnutrition. Families facing extreme poverty are simply unable to get enough food to eat.

Quote:

Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

[Dr. Shane]

And if you agree with it, how do you see your ideas when compared to the church's position on tobacco?

The church takes a position that smoking tobacco is sinful however it does not take a position that civil government should ban tobacco.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

I didn't think it was neither a silly nor immature opinion. In fact, I agree with Jeannie43.

And I agree with you and Jeannie43.

pk

I think that is insulting and belittling. It is like telling a gay person they are not gay because gay means happy and there is nothing happy about being homosexual. How rude! If a homosexual wants to call themselves gay they have every right to do that and who am I to insult them by insisting they not use the word gay to describe themselves?

It comes down to an issue of respecting people. If a person wants to call themselves pro-choice, who am I to insist they call themselves pro-abortion? If they want to call themselves pro-life, who am I to say that term is meaningless and they should call themselves anti-abortion?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

People can call themselves whatever they want. It doesn't change anything. "A rose by any other name...."

But I still agree with Jeannie43. That's *my* opinion.

[Overaged]

I didn't think it was neither a silly nor immature opinion. In fact, I agree with Jeannie43.

And I agree with you and Jeannie43.

pk

I think that is insulting and belittling. It is like telling a gay person they are not gay because gay means happy and there is nothing happy about being homosexual. How rude! If a homosexual wants to call themselves gay they have every right to do that and who am I to insult them by insisting they not use the word gay to describe themselves?

It comes down to an issue of respecting people. If a person wants to call themselves pro-choice, who am I to insist they call themselves pro-abortion? If they want to call themselves pro-life, who am I to say that term is meaningless and they should call themselves anti-abortion?

Shane; you go way too far on this. Are you trying to censor our ideas with such accusatory remarks? There is a wide difference between us disagreeing with a terminology and "disrespecting" people. The idea that those who use the term Pro Life are in fact insinuating something about people such as jeannie43 has stated is nowhere near disrespectful. By using the term; Pro Lifers infact do say or insinuate things that aren't there. Perhaps your "disrespect" has been misplaced here; and you could look a little closer at who is being belittled and insulted with comments like that.

[Dr. Shane]

Pro-life is an accepted part of the political vocabulary in America. It means what people who claim to be pro-life say it means. People that disagree with them don't get to redefine them in negative terms. It doesn't work like that. That is a silly and immature approach to the abortion debate.

I have known pro-life people who refuse to use the term pro-choice. They point out that the fetus doesn't have a choice. The father of the child doesn't have a choice. Thus they call people favoring legal abortion pro-abortion. I think they are being just as silly and immature and the people that insist on calling pro-life people anti-abortion.

Now I agree that the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion are better and more descriptive terms. But those are not the words that have become part of the political language in the abortion debate. Words mean things. If I want to participate in the abortion discussion I need to use the terms established, accepted and used in that discussion.

The example I used earlier regarding the word gay is the same way. There are conservatives that refuse to use the word gay in relation to the homosexual debate. To them being gay is what we all did when we watched the Flintstones. To them, there is nothing gay about homosexuality. I think that is a silly and immature position. The word gay is part of the modern political vocabulary and if we want to participate in such discussions we need to accept the terminology already established.