Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[teresaq]

pro-life:

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

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.

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 25:41 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.

[Overaged]

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.

One of the problems with this issue is that people don't want to call it what it is. There simply is nothing wrong with "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion," and your adjectives for people who use same are totally off base. If I went into any political arena, anywhere in the world, they would ALL know what I meant if I said I was "pro-abortion," or "anti-abortion." I would rather be accurate than "politically correct," because most so called "political correctness" I have seen is so far from the truth, it's just not hard to see how wrong it actually is.

[Dr. Shane]

pro-life:

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

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.

I think I need the dots connected for me. What is the point of this information? Should will kill off the orphans before they are born? Is that the idea?

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

pro-life:

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

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.

I think I need the dots connected for me. What is the point of this information? Should will kill off the orphans before they are born? Is that the idea?

If I may interject; I think I have atleast an idea of what that poster was/is trying to say. Perhaps they are making a statement about the hypocrisy of some professing "Pro-Lifers," who maybe arnt so pro-life after all if they can ignore such atrocities in the world? I could name some nasty stuff that goes on in the streets and alleys of the city every night; similar questions could be asked. Who really is "Pro-Life?" The term can definitely be misleading. Anti-Abortion" leaves no room for "interpretation."

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I think I need the dots connected for me. What is the point of this information? Should will kill off the orphans before they are born? Is that the idea?

No. Take care of the orphans and other children that we have right now who don't have anyone or anywhere to go before bringing even more into the world to suffer the same consequences.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

so you think he was playing "dumb"? .... and I agree about the quotes..

[Nic Samojluk]

Karl,

I have been reading your comments and I must say that I am very impressed with your courage to stand for what is right and in defense of the most vulnerable members of the human race. I want to take the opportunity to clarify a few details dealing with the investigation I worked for years connected with the issue of abortion.

The poster you were responding to believes that her sacred mission in this blog is to discredit what I have been doing as evidenced by the following sample comments she has been repeatedly making over and over again.

Quote:

My whole line of reasoning for posting in this thread has been 1) to prove that Nic's PhD credentials are not legitimate ...

Quote:

Nic, the more you write, the more I am convinced your degree is worthless.

Her argument is that, since the university I was enrolled in for ten years did not succeed in getting their Ph.D program in religion accredited, then my credentials are not legitimate and my degree is worthless. Here is my response:

1. The Legitimacy Question: My understanding of illegitimacy is claiming to something a person is not entitled to. The program I went through was under the supervision of the accreditation committee, I did complete all the work which was required of me, and the accreditation committee allowed the university to grant the diplomas with the proviso that said program must be discontinued. How credible is then the claim that I do possess an illegitimate degree?

2. The “Worthless” Claim: Worthless for what? Had my aim been to secure a teaching position in an accredited institution, then I would concede that my effort was indeed worthless. That was not my objective, since I do have my own real estate business and have no current plans of abandoning it. So what was my aim in investing so much of my time and money into this program?

My objective was to increase my chances of being heard by my fellow Adventists about the seriousness of departing from the noble pro-life example of our early Adventists who did condemn the practice of abortion in the strongest terms and labeled such atrocity as plain “murder” and a violation of the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue.

Did I achieve my objective? I believe I did. When I became concerned about the abortion issue approximately two decades ago, I had zero chance to be heard by my fellow Adventists. All my efforts at saying a word in defense of the unborn edgewise bore zero results. In contrast, now I have had the privilege of having several of my articles published, my doctoral dissertation is being read online by many, and I have had the privilege of seeing the abortion issue being discussed on several Adventist blogs, including this one.

If this trend continues, my dream of having a large segment of Adventists discussing this issue may become a reality. I praise the Lord for what has been accomplished so far, and I pray for an increased success in raising this issue among the “Remnant Church” of God.

I conclude from this that what is worthless is not my research but rather the senseless determination of those who have been making baseless claims about my work. There is no accreditation requirement for posting on this and on many other similar blogs dealing with the issue of abortion in which I have been participating. Actually my most vocal opponent was forced at one point to concede that the thesis of my investigation was correct when she made the following admission:

Quote:

Nic, you are right ... The Adventist Church is now pro-choice

This is more important for me than any accredited degree I might have secured.

[phkrause]

I think he knew the point of the quotes, but then if we paid more attention to those quotes....well...maybe our opinions would not be so important!!

Excellent post CoAspen. My thoughts also.

pk

[Overaged]

Karl,

If this trend continues, my dream of having a large segment of Adventists discussing this issue may become a reality. I praise the Lord for what has been accomplished so far, and I pray for an increased success in raising this issue among the “Remnant Church” of God.

I conclude from this that what is worthless is not my research but rather the senseless determination of those who have been making baseless claims about my work.

I would like to ask you again please to provide me with a link of some kind so that I can see your "work." I will say, it doesn't matter how many years you have been doing this "work." It does not make you an expert. Especially when you bring other Church issues, (some of them unproven) into it. I question what you have learned with all your "work" and what you are teaching.

I would also like to point out that you have consistently mixed other issues you have with the Church into your "work" which fact alone casts doubt on the credibility of same. The accreditation question is secondary. Mixing truth with error and personal peeves never mixes with one who truly wants the truth. The fact remains that the Conference Guidelines don't say what you want them to say.

[Dr. Shane]

Perhaps they are making a statement about the hypocrisy of some professing "Pro-Lifers," who maybe arnt so pro-life after all if they can ignore such atrocities in the world?

The last pro-life President of the US gave more foreign aid to Africa than any previous President. He also increased domestic welfare programs and foreign aid to southeast Asia.

[Dr. Shane]

I think he knew the point of the quotes,

If that reference is to me, it is wrong. I did not realize someone was trying to redefine the meaning of Pro-life. I think that is rather silly. Why not redefine the meaning of the word gay next?

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Perhaps they are making a statement about the hypocrisy of some professing "Pro-Lifers," who maybe arnt so pro-life after all if they can ignore such atrocities in the world?

The last pro-life President of the US gave more foreign aid to Africa than any previous President. He also increased domestic welfare programs and foreign aid to southeast Asia.

Hmmm, one man out of how many in the world doing what we were talking about? That's a nice story but the point here is still well made.

[Overaged]

Why not redefine the meaning of the word gay next?

This word has already been redefined.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Why not redefine the meaning of the word gay next?

This word has already been redefined.

Good point.

pk

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Why not redefine the meaning of the word gay next?

This word has already been redefined.

What's the new definition?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

This is more important for me than any accredited degree I might have secured.

I had no idea you valued my opinion so highly, Nic.

You might want to quote me correctly though and in context. That's another one of your problems....unprofessionalism. Here's a sample of what I've been saying:

Quote:

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.

You stated that you wanted the degree so you could be published. And now you state you have been published. Good for you. Your dissertation has not been published, but, oh, well.

Your degree was from an unaccredited university. That makes your degree unaccredited. That might not make any difference to you, but it would to someone who might read your work and think that you were some sort of expert on the subject. Kind of fraudulent, wouldn't you say?

Oh, and 10 years is too long to take to get a PhD. Some of your data may be out of date.

By the way, this isn't a blog. It is a forum.

[Dr. Shane]

It goes like this...

Gay man: I am gay.

Fringe Conservative: No you are not.

Gay man: Huh? yes man, I am.

Fringe Conservative: No, you are a homosexual. Gay means happy and there is nothing gay about being a homosexual.

Gay man: [rolls eyes] Whatever dude.

Pro-lifer: I am pro-life.

Fringe Liberal: No you are not.

Pro-lifer: Huh? yes, I am.

Fringe Liberal: No, you don't care about suffering children in Africa and AIDS victims. If you were pro-life you would care about people who are alive - not clumps of flesh inside a woman's body that have yet to be born.

Pro-lifer: [rolls eyes] Whatever dude.

[Guest]

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Karl,

If this trend continues, my dream of having a large segment of Adventists discussing this issue may become a reality. I praise the Lord for what has been accomplished so far, and I pray for an increased success in raising this issue among the “Remnant Church” of God.

I conclude from this that what is worthless is not my research but rather the senseless determination of those who have been making baseless claims about my work.

I would like to ask you again please to provide me with a link of some kind so that I can see your "work." I will say, it doesn't matter how many years you have been doing this "work." It does not make you an expert. Especially when you bring other Church issues, (some of them unproven) into it. I question what you have learned with all your "work" and what you are teaching.

I would also like to point out that you have consistently mixed other issues you have with the Church into your "work" which fact alone casts doubt on the credibility of same. The accreditation question is secondary. Mixing truth with error and personal peeves never mixes with one who truly wants the truth. The fact remains that the Conference Guidelines don't say what you want them to say.

Overaged,

Thanks for your comments! Here is the link you requested: http://letsfocusonlife.com .My response to the rest of your comments is:

1. Did I claim to be en expert? Why are you building a straw man out of thin air? Can you address what I did in fact claim? I made only two claims in my posting: A. that my degree is not illegitimate, since it was granted under the supervision of the accreditation committee and the university was allowed to grant said degree to me and several others with the proviso that the program must end, which it did; and that my work was not “worthless” since I did achieve my objective of raising the issue of abortion which is now being discussed among Adventists.

2. You bring other side issues which might be true or false. Unfortunately, I cannot respond to your comments unless you deal with specifics instead of generalities. Can you document where I am in error. I am interested in factual error, which if pointed and documented I am willing to correct. I have started the process of editing my dissertation; one individual did discover a factual error which I have already corrected. I am open to constructive criticism, but not so to destructive type of comments.

What I am saying to you applies to some of Pam’s comments and criticism as well. I do agree that statistical analysis would have been more impressive and that my writing style may not match hers. Is this a good reason to describe my work as “worthless”? Should we reject the Gospels simply because they were written in Koine instead of the Classical Greek? She insists that she detected some grammatical and spelling errors in my work, but she fails to point them to me. This type of criticism is almost “worthless” to me. On the surface her aim seems to be destructive instead of constructive.

[Overaged]

For those following this topic, wondering how to make sense out of it; I wanted to share this link. It will be good to share it with all the young people you know, both guys and gals. When Does Life Begin (video online) and Abortion Changes You and Adventist Adoptions and Unplanned Pregnancy Counselling (text and video)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Should we reject the Gospels simply because they were written in Koine instead of the Classical Greek?

irrelevant

I gave you examples of where things in your dissertation could be improved. You chose to ignore me.

No one ever said your degree was "illegitimate"....that's YOUR word. I said your degree itself was basically worthless because it was from an unaccredited university.

I think your dissertation has some merit, but I think it needs lot of polishing up to make it professionally sound.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

When Does Life Begin (video online)

Boy, is *that* video biased!

[Nic Samojluk]

Dear Readers,

This is what Pam stated before:

Quote:

Re: Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

rudywoofs

My whole line of reasoning for posting in this thread has been 1) to prove that Nic's PhD credentials are not legitimate, and ...

http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/322884/112.html

And here is what she states now:

Quote:

Re: Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

rudywoofs

No one ever said your degree was "illegitimate"....that's YOUR word.

http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/322884/112.html

I guess, she is technically right. She did not use the term “illegitimate.” She rather used the phrase “not legitimate.” I guess it is mea culpa because I did replace the phrase “not legitimate” with “illegitimate.” Wow. What a terrible rascal I am! Now, what can we say about an individual who quibbles about such terrible infractions?

[Overaged]

I guess, she is technically right. She did not use the term “illegitimate.” She rather used the phrase “not legitimate.” I guess it is mea culpa because I did replace the phrase “not legitimate” with “illegitimate.” Wow. What a terrible rascal I am! Now, what can we say about an individual who quibbles about such terrible infractions?

You are technically right too. While you maybe didn't use the word "expert" in describing your great qualifications to do your "work" on this subject; the time and energy you spend on your site and here letting people know the great lengths you think you have gone to in your education and preparation to write about this speaks for itself. It's not hard to see how your "dissertation" and I use the word lightly, is very unprofessional on many counts.

Again; you mix other issues into your "work" as if to somehow bolster it's credibility; and by that alone you make your so called degree illegitimate.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I guess' date=' she is technically right. She did not use the term “illegitimate.” She rather used the phrase “not legitimate.” I guess it is mea culpa because I did replace the phrase “not legitimate” with “illegitimate.” Wow. What a terrible rascal I am! Now, what can we say about an individual who quibbles about such terrible infractions?